Definition
A Latin phrase meaning "and now at this day." In historical common law pleading and procedure, this was the formal opening phrase used to begin an entry of appearance or a continuance on the court record. The phrase signaled that the matter had come forward to the present day — the day then before the court — and that the parties or one of them was now appearing or that the proceeding was being carried forward from a prior date.
The phrase functioned as a procedural marker rather than a substantive legal term. It told anyone reading the court record precisely what was happening at that point in time: the case had been continued to this day, and the record was now accounting for the parties' presence or absence.
Common Confusion
ET MODO AD HUNC DIEM is sometimes loosely equated with a simple continuance order, but it is more precisely the formal verbal formula that opened the record entry documenting a continuance or appearance — not the continuance itself. The phrase is the clerk's or pleader's notation, not the court's directive.
Researchers should also distinguish this phrase from AD HUNC DIEM alone, which similarly means "at this day" but lacks the connective "and now" that marks ET MODO AD HUNC DIEM as a continuation of a prior proceeding. The "et modo" component carries temporal significance: it connects the present proceeding to whatever came before.
Why It Matters in Research
This phrase appears almost exclusively in pre-modern English and American common law records — court rolls, plea rolls, and formal pleading books — from periods when Latin remained the language of official court entries. A researcher working in colonial American court records, early federal records, or English common law sources from the fifteenth through early eighteenth centuries will encounter this phrase as a routine structural element of the written record. It is a navigational marker: when you see it, you know you are at the opening of a continuance entry or appearance entry, not at a substantive ruling or verdict.
By the time Latin was formally abolished from English court records (1733 in England), the phrase was already being rendered in its English equivalent — "and now at this day" — which continued in use well into the nineteenth century in both English and American practice. A researcher working in American records from the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century may find the English translation performing the identical function without recognizing the connection to the Latin original. Knowing the Latin form illuminates the purpose of the English form.
The phrase has no modern operative significance. It does not appear in contemporary pleading or practice. Its value is entirely documentary and historical: it signals procedural posture within a historical record and helps researchers identify continuances, track appearance patterns, and understand the rhythmic structure of pre-modern litigation as it unfolded across multiple court days.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (both first and second editions) and Burrill's Law Dictionary are in full agreement on this term. All three define it identically as "and now at this day" and identify its function as the formal opening of a continuance or appearance entry. Burrill adds the useful temporal qualifier "anciently used," confirming that even at the time of his writing the Latin form had already passed from active use while the English equivalent persisted. Neither edition of Black's nor Burrill expands beyond this summary treatment, which is appropriate given that the phrase is a formulaic procedural expression rather than a substantive doctrine. None of the sources identify any significant jurisdictional variation or doctrinal complexity attached to the phrase itself.
What the historical dictionaries do not address is the precise contexts in which the phrase would appear differently — for instance, whether it opened an entry of voluntary appearance versus a compelled one, or how it interacted with default proceedings when a party failed to appear on the day in question. Researchers needing that level of procedural granularity should consult contemporaneous pleading manuals and form books rather than definitional sources.
Jurisdictional Note
The phrase originates in English common law procedure and carried into early American practice in colonies and states that followed English procedural forms. Its use was not uniform across all American jurisdictions, reflecting the varying degrees to which individual colonies and early states adopted formal English pleading conventions.