Definition
Fue is an archaic term of Anglo-Norman French origin used in early English law to denote flight — specifically, the act of fleeing or absconding in a manner that carried legal consequences. The term appears primarily in two technical legal phrases:
1. Fuer en fait (flight in fact): The actual, physical act of fleeing — when a person visibly and bodily ran from justice or from a legal proceeding. This was the more concrete form of flight, observable and demonstrable.
2. Fuer en ley (flight in law): A legal fiction by which a person was deemed to have fled without having physically absconded. The clearest example was failure to appear when called in the county court; non-appearance was treated in law as equivalent to flight, with the same legal consequences attaching as if the person had physically run.
Both forms were consequential in early English criminal and civil procedure, where flight was associated with guilt, forfeiture, and outlawry proceedings.
---
Common Confusion
Fue and flight are not interchangeable in historical sources without attention to context. Modern criminal law uses "flight" loosely — as evidence of consciousness of guilt, or as a factor in flight-risk bail determinations — with none of the rigid technical distinction between actual and constructive flight that the fue framework imposed. A researcher encountering fuer en fait or fuer en ley in a historical source should not assume these map onto modern "flight" doctrine. The constructive-flight concept embedded in fuer en ley is particularly easy to misread: failure to appear in early English courts was not merely analogous to flight — it was flight, as a matter of law, with forfeiture consequences that do not survive in modern procedure.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in early English legal records — particularly Year Books, plea rolls, county court records, and texts on outlawry — will encounter fue and its compound phrases without definition. Burrill's entry is terse, and most modern legal dictionaries omit the term entirely, making this an area where researchers relying solely on contemporary references will be left without guidance.
Several traps exist:
First, the distinction between fuer en fait and fuer en ley is not always flagged explicitly in primary sources. A record noting that a defendant "fuit en fue" may require contextual reading to determine whether actual physical flight or mere non-appearance is being described — the legal consequences could differ in degree even when the formal classification was the same.
Second, fue connects directly to outlawry procedure. In early English law, flight — whether in fact or in law — was a predicate step toward exigent process and, ultimately, outlawry. Researchers tracing outlawry proceedings should treat fue-related entries as upstream markers in that procedural chain.
Third, the Latin interjectional word fue (expressing aversion or disgust, as in classical Latin dramatic texts) is wholly unrelated to the legal term. Researchers working across Latin legal texts and literary sources should not conflate these. The legal term derives from Anglo-Norman French, not Latin exclamatory usage.
Fourth, Burrill's cross-reference to Jenk. Cent. 256 (Jenkins, Centuries of Ambiguous Cases) and Story's Equity Jurisprudence places fue adjacent to the maxim that equity will not assist a party to recover what they must immediately restore to another — a context that requires careful reading. That equitable principle appears in proximity to the fue entry in Burrill but is not itself part of the fue definition; it belongs to a separate neighboring discussion of equitable relief.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the primary historical dictionary treatment of fue in the Anglo-American tradition. The entry is brief and definitional rather than analytical, supplying the two-part distinction (fuer en fait / fuer en ley) with a single illustrative example for the constructive form: failure to appear when called in the county court. Burrill does not elaborate on consequences, procedural sequencing, or the relationship to outlawry — all of which require the researcher to move to primary and secondary sources on early English criminal procedure.
No equivalent entry appears in Black's Law Dictionary in its early editions, and the term is effectively absent from most American legal dictionaries, reflecting the term's obsolescence in American practice. Researchers needing deeper treatment should consult works on medieval English legal procedure and the history of outlawry rather than relying on dictionary sources alone.
The Latin dictionary entry for fue (an interjection, foh! fie!) is philologically interesting but legally irrelevant. Researchers should note that the legal term's Anglo-Norman derivation distinguishes it entirely from any Latin root.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Fue as a technical legal term is specific to early English law and does not appear as operative doctrine in any modern common law jurisdiction. Its relevance is historical and archival — relevant to researchers working in English legal history, outlawry, and medieval procedure. American and Commonwealth researchers will encounter it only in historical sources.
---