Definition
A writ of homagio respectuando directed the escheator — the royal officer responsible for administering lands that had fallen to the Crown — to deliver seisin of lands to the heir of a deceased tenant-in-chief, notwithstanding that the heir had not yet performed homage. Under the feudal tenure system, an heir ordinarily could not receive livery of seisin (formal delivery of possession) of lands held of the Crown until he had performed homage to the king. This writ suspended that requirement, allowing the heir to take possession of the land while the performance of homage was deferred to a later time.
The Bouvier formulation adds a qualifying detail: the writ issued to the heir of full age, and it operated only where some reasonable cause prevented timely performance of homage. The heir was not permanently excused from the obligation — homage remained due — but its performance was respectuated, meaning formally postponed.
Why It Matters in Research
This term belongs entirely to the medieval English land tenure system and has no operative legal significance in any modern jurisdiction. Researchers will encounter it almost exclusively in historical sources dealing with feudal tenure, escheat, the escheator's office, or the body of prerogative writs that governed the relationship between the Crown and its tenants-in-chief.
The key research trap is unfamiliarity with the procedural vocabulary surrounding it. Three related concepts must be understood to make sense of this writ: (1) homage, the formal ceremony by which a tenant acknowledged fealty to a lord; (2) livery of seisin, the physical act of delivering possession of land; and (3) the escheator, the Crown's local officer who administered land during vacancies and supervised the inquest of office that established the heir's right. Without grounding in all three, the writ's function is opaque.
The Fitzherbert citation appearing in both Black's editions (Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 269) refers to Anthony Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium, the standard medieval English treatise cataloguing the forms of original writs. Researchers tracing this writ to primary sources should consult that work. Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium was a practical reference for practitioners navigating the writ system, and the page reference is to his treatment of writs relating to homage and seisin.
The writ also connects to the broader corpus of prerogative writs and inquisitions post mortem. When a tenant-in-chief died, an inquisition post mortem was conducted to establish the heir's identity and age. If the heir was of full age and entitled to immediate possession, the normal path required homage before livery issued. This writ was the procedural instrument for breaking that sequence when circumstances warranted delay.
Historical Dictionary Support
The three source dictionaries are in substantial agreement. Both Black's editions follow Fitzherbert closely, defining the writ as directed to the escheator and tied to the king's tenant specifically. Bouvier broadens slightly, framing the writ as available to the heir of a tenant generally (not limited to the king's tenant), and adds the qualification that the heir must be of full age and that some reasonable cause must exist to hinder timely homage. Bouvier's source is Termes de la Ley, the early English law dictionary attributed to John Rastell, which predates and differs from Fitzherbert in its level of qualification.
The divergence between Black's and Bouvier's on the "king's tenant" point is worth noting. Homage was owed up the entire feudal chain, not only to the Crown, but the procedural machinery of the escheator's office and the royal writ system applied specifically to tenants-in-chief — those holding directly of the Crown. Bouvier's framing may reflect a broader doctrinal statement about homage deferral, while Black's is more precise about the writ's jurisdictional scope.
Neither source addresses the writ's historical obsolescence or the date of its practical disappearance. The feudal tenures that made this writ necessary were largely abolished in England by the Tenures Abolition Act 1660, after which homage as a condition of seisin ceased to have practical legal effect. No historical dictionary in the corpus addresses this cutoff directly.
Jurisdictional Note
This writ was a creature of English feudal tenure law and has no counterpart in American law. Colonial land grants in the United States generally did not replicate the homage requirement of English tenure, and the writ was obsolete before American legal institutions were established.