Definition
Et non is a Latin phrase meaning "and not." In common law pleading, it serves as the introductory words of the negative averment in a special traverse — the portion of a pleading where a party denies a specific fact alleged by the opponent while admitting the general context. The phrase signals the precise point of denial, distinguishing what is contested from what is conceded.
In a special traverse, et non functions identically to the more familiar phrase absque hoc ("without this"), and the two were used interchangeably in practice. Both phrases mark the technical boundary between the inducement (the explanatory preamble acknowledging surrounding facts) and the traversing clause (the specific denial). The choice between et non and absque hoc was largely one of pleader preference or local practice, not substantive distinction.
Common Confusion
Et non and absque hoc are functionally identical in pleading practice. Historical sources, including both editions of Black's and Burrill's, confirm they carry the same legal force. Researchers should not treat the presence of one phrase versus the other as a signal of any procedural or substantive difference. A third related phrase, without this that, was the English-language equivalent performing the same function. All three appear in common law pleading records, and all introduce the same operative denial.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is essentially inert in modern legal practice. The highly formalized system of common law pleading that gave et non its technical function was abolished in most American jurisdictions by the mid-nineteenth century through the adoption of code pleading, and later superseded again by notice pleading under rules modeled on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A researcher encountering et non will almost exclusively find it in pre-code pleading records, English common law materials, and early American state court documents predating procedural reform.
The primary research trap is encountering et non in a historical pleading document and misreading the structure of the argument. In a special traverse, the language before et non (the inducement) is not a concession in the modern sense — it is a contextual framing. The actual denial begins at et non or absque hoc and runs through the concluding verification. Misidentifying which part of the pleading carries the operative denial can distort the researcher's understanding of what the party actually disputed.
Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus who encounter et non should expect to find it in materials connected to common law civil procedure, treatises on pleading and practice, and early case records. It does not appear in constitutional doctrine, statutory interpretation, or modern procedural contexts.
Historical Dictionary Support
All three source dictionaries are in full agreement. Black's (both editions) and Burrill's define et non as "and not," identify it as a pleading term introducing negative averments in a special traverse, and confirm its equivalence to absque hoc. Burrill's characterization of the phrase as "sometimes anciently used" suggests it was already receding from active practice even within the common law tradition — a useful indicator that et non was the less dominant of the two equivalent formulations, with absque hoc appearing more frequently in standard pleading forms.
None of the historical sources provide meaningful discussion of when one phrase was preferred over the other, which reflects the reality that the distinction carried no legal consequence. The historical dictionaries collectively treat this as a minor terminological note rather than a substantive doctrinal entry, and that characterization is accurate.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
No Law Mind Encyclopedia entry directly addresses common law pleading forms or the traverse. The matched entries (non-solicitation agreements, non-disclosure agreements, non-compete enforceability) are not relevant — the textual overlap on "non" is coincidental. No encyclopedia cross-reference applies here.