Definition
A Latin phrase meaning "you cause to be extended." In English legal practice, extendi facias was the formal name of a writ of execution issued against a debtor — particularly a Crown debtor — directing the sheriff to cause the debtor's lands and goods to be appraised and delivered to the creditor at the assessed value in satisfaction of the debt. The writ took its name from its two operative Latin words. It was, and is, far more commonly encountered in legal sources under its shortened name: an "extent."
The writ operated differently from ordinary execution writs. Rather than selling the debtor's property outright, it authorized the creditor to hold and enjoy the property — receiving its rents and profits — until the debt was satisfied. This made it a distinctive remedy, historically available in proceedings on Crown debts and later extended by statute to certain private creditors.
Common Confusion
Extendi facias and extent are the same instrument. Extendi facias is the formal Latin designation of the writ; extent is the common English shorthand. Researchers encountering either term in historical sources are looking at the same remedy. The Rapalje & Lawrence entry conflates this term with "extension" (a general indulgence of time for debt repayment), which is an entirely distinct concept. The two should not be confused: extendi facias was a compulsory writ of execution, not a consensual arrangement between creditor and debtor.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is almost exclusively a historical research term. It appears in English common law sources from the medieval period through the nineteenth century and has no meaningful life in modern American or English practice. Researchers encountering the term should understand several navigational points.
First, look under EXTENT. Every major historical dictionary treats extendi facias as a cross-reference entry pointing to extent as the substantive treatment. The doctrine, the procedure, and the case law will be organized under extent in digests, treatises, and encyclopedias.
Second, the writ had a special connection to Crown debt collection. Its primary historical function was enforcing judgments owed to the Crown, and its availability to private creditors was a statutory extension of that original royal remedy. Research into English fiscal and revenue law will encounter it frequently; research into ordinary private debt collection less so.
Third, American relevance is limited but not zero. Some early American federal courts and states adopted or adapted the extent process for collecting federal revenue debts, drawing on English practice. Researchers working in early federal court records or American equity practice from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries may encounter the term in this context.
Fourth, the Rapalje & Lawrence entry is a research trap. That dictionary's entry under extendi facias redirects to "extend" and then immediately pivots to discuss "extension" as a general concept of debt indulgence — a wholly different legal animal. Do not treat the Rapalje entry as substantive treatment of the writ itself.
Historical Dictionary Support
The three substantive historical dictionary entries — both editions of Black's and Burrill's — are in complete agreement. All three define extendi facias as a Latin-named writ of execution meaning "you cause to be extended," note that the name derives from its two emphatic operative words, and direct the reader to the common name "extent" for fuller treatment. Both Black's editions and Burrill cite the same two authorities: Tidd's Practice (2nd volume) and Stephen's Commentaries (4th volume), confirming these as the standard treatise references for the procedural mechanics of the writ.
Burrill's entry is essentially identical to both Black's editions, and the convergence across dictionaries on the same two treatise citations suggests the historical dictionaries were drawing from a shared learned tradition rather than independent analysis. None of the entries provide substantive description of how the writ operated — its mechanics, its relationship to Crown prerogative, or its availability to private creditors — leaving researchers dependent on Tidd and Stephen for procedural depth.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry is an outlier and should be treated cautiously. Its cross-reference structure collapses extendi facias, extend, and extension into a single organizational block, obscuring the distinctions between them. The case citations it provides under "extension" relate to extension of time for arbitration awards and bond payments — matters entirely unrelated to the writ of execution.
Jurisdictional Note
Extendi facias was a creature of English common law and equity practice. Its operation in American jurisdictions was limited and derivative. Researchers working in English legal history, early federal practice, or colonial American law will find it relevant; those working in modern American state law will not.