Definition
To deprive a person of something by judgment of a court; to put out of or bar from a right, possession, or privilege through judicial decree. The term appears in old English legal records to describe the act of a court formally stripping a party of a custody, right, or interest — not merely ruling against them, but pronouncing them out of it entirely. It is the Latin verbal form corresponding to the anglicized term FORJUDGE.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encountering this term will find it almost exclusively in medieval and early common law sources — plea rolls, Year Books, Bracton, and related treatises. It signals a formal judicial dispossession, distinct from a mere adverse judgment on a claim. When reading old English court records, the distinction matters: forisjudicare describes the operative act of the court's deprivation, not simply a finding of no right. A party might lose a case without being forisjudicatus; the term implies a stripping or expulsion by judicial act.
The term appears in Latin-language records of the English royal courts, so researchers working in translated or regested sources should watch for variant spellings and anglicized forms. Burrill's citation to Bracton (fol. 256 b) is the anchor reference and the passage concerns wardship — a context worth noting, since forjudgment of custody or wardship was a recognized remedy in the feudal courts when a guardian was found to have abused the ward's estate. That feudal context shapes how the word functions in the sources: it carries the force of a formal, permanent exclusion from a custodial or proprietary interest, not a temporary restraint.
Because the term is confined to historical usage, it will not appear in modern statutory or case law. Researchers building backward from a modern dispute involving dispossession, forfeiture, or judicial ouster should use this term as a gateway into the medieval materials, then transition to FORJUDGE, FORFEITURE, or OUSTER for the modern doctrinal line.
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill is the primary source for this term in the Law Mind corpus, and his entry is concise but sufficient. He traces the construction accurately — foris (without, outside) combined with judicare (to judge, to adjudicate) — and renders the meaning as deprivation or expulsion by judicial act. The Bracton citation he provides is genuine and illustrative: the passage addresses wardship proceedings in the royal court and uses forisjudicare to describe the court's act of formally putting the guardian out of the custody.
No significant divergence exists among the historical dictionaries on this term's meaning, likely because it is narrow enough in usage that there was little occasion for interpretive dispute. What the historical sources do not address is the procedural machinery that preceded the judgment — what showing was required, what defenses were available — matters that would require direct engagement with the plea roll records and Bracton's own surrounding discussion rather than dictionary authority alone.
Jurisdictional Note
This term is an artifact of old English law and has no recognized modern equivalent in any common law jurisdiction. It does not appear in American, Canadian, or modern English legal usage. Research is confined to English historical sources predating the seventeenth century.