Definition
Fine capiendo pro terris (Latin: "for taking a fine for lands") was an obsolete English writ available to a person who, upon conviction by jury, had suffered the forfeiture of lands and goods and imprisonment of his body. The writ allowed that person to obtain remission of his imprisonment and restoration of his lands and goods upon paying a sum of money — that is, upon making a fine — to obtain the king's favor. The writ is no longer in use and has no modern equivalent in any common law jurisdiction.
---
Common Confusion
Despite its name, this writ has nothing to do with the modern concept of a "fine" as a monetary penalty imposed by a court at sentencing. The Latin finis, in medieval legal usage, commonly referred to a sum paid to end a dispute or to purchase a royal privilege or pardon — a transaction between a subject and the crown — not a punishment levied by a tribunal. The confusion is compounded because the writ appears in close proximity in early digests to entries for criminal fines (see Rapalje & Lawrence's cross-reference to FINE, CRIMINAL). Researchers encountering the term in historical sources should not read it through the lens of modern sentencing law.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is a navigational dead end for researchers expecting live doctrine, but it has genuine research value in three narrow contexts:
First, it illuminates the mechanics of medieval English forfeiture law. The writ presupposes a legal regime in which jury conviction could trigger simultaneous forfeiture of property and imprisonment — a package of consequences quite different from the bifurcated modern system of incarceration and civil asset forfeiture. Researchers tracing the historical roots of forfeiture doctrine in equity or early American law may encounter this writ in foundational English sources.
Second, the writ is evidence of the crown's power to dispense with or mitigate penalties upon payment — a practice that later reformers targeted as corrupt and that shaped Parliamentary limits on royal prerogative. Researchers working on the history of pardons, royal grace, or the commutation of sentences will find this writ part of that institutional lineage.
Third, the Registrum Omnium Brevium (Reg. Orig.), cited by every major dictionary source, is the authoritative reference for this writ. Researchers in legal history who need the original writ form should go directly to that source. No modern treatise or restatement addresses this writ; its research life is entirely confined to historical and comparative legal history scholarship.
The Bouvier's entry in the available source material contains an apparent fragment — "every other feudal right, by the French revolution" — that belongs to a separate entry on the abolition of feudal tenures and was misattributed to this term in the indexed source. Researchers should treat that fragment as a transcription artifact and disregard it in connection with this writ.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
All three primary dictionary sources — Black's (1st ed.), Black's (2nd ed.), and Bouvier's — offer identical substantive definitions, each tracking the language of the Registrum Originale without elaboration. This uniformity signals that none of the compilers had independent knowledge of the writ's practical operation; they were all transmitting the same received text from a single foundational source. Rapalje & Lawrence cross-references the writ under DE FINE CAPIENDO PRO TERRIS, confirming that the writ was indexed in historical digests under both forms of its name. No dictionary source provides a date of obsolescence or identifies the statute or judicial practice that rendered the writ defunct. Researchers should not expect historical dictionaries to fill that gap; the writ's disappearance is a function of the wholesale reorganization of English criminal and forfeiture procedure over several centuries rather than any single abolishing act.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This writ was exclusively a creature of the English common law and was never received into American colonial or post-revolutionary practice. It does not appear in any American procedural code or statute. Research interest, if any, is confined to English legal history sources.
---