Definition
A Law French phrase meaning "and so" or "and thus." Used in pleading to introduce a conclusion or to signal the logical result of facts previously stated — equivalent to the Latin *et ita* or the English "and so it is" or "and therefore." The phrase connects a chain of factual allegations to the pleader's ultimate assertion, serving as a connective and conclusory marker in formal common law pleading.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encountering *et issint* will find it almost exclusively in early English common law pleading records, Year Books, and treatises drawing on that tradition. Its appearance signals formal pleading of the older style — particularly writs, pleas in bar, and traverse pleadings — where Law French remained the operative language of the courts. In that context, *et issint* functions as a structural signal: what follows is the pleader's summation or the conclusion drawn from the facts just alleged.
The phrase is largely obsolete in modern practice, having disappeared with Law French itself from English courts in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the Law Mind corpus, expect to see it in treatise commentary on historical pleading forms, in reproductions of early writs, or in scholarly analysis of Year Book materials. It is not a term of art with ongoing doctrinal content — its significance is structural and linguistic rather than substantive.
Burrill's single citation to Coke on Littleton (Co. Litt. 303b) places the phrase squarely in the classical common law pleading tradition. Researchers using that volume should note that Coke's commentary blends Law French, Latin, and English — *et issint* may appear alongside functionally equivalent Latin or English phrases without the text flagging the shift in language.
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's entry is minimal: "L. Fr. And so. Co. Litt. 303 b." The brevity is appropriate given the phrase's narrow function. It is a connective, not a legal doctrine. Burrill correctly identifies the linguistic origin (Law French) and the translation, and the Coke citation gives a concrete locus for researchers.
No substantive divergence exists across historical dictionaries on this point because the phrase is too simple to generate interpretive controversy. What historical sources collectively miss is context: *et issint* belongs to a pleading vocabulary that assumes familiarity with Law French formulary practice. Researchers unfamiliar with that tradition may encounter the phrase without recognizing it as a stock connective rather than a term carrying independent legal weight.