Definition
A Latin adverb meaning "in the first place" or "first of all." In legal drafting, *imprimis* functions as an introductory marker — a signal that what follows is the first item in a series, most commonly appearing in wills, inventories, pleadings, and formal instruments where the drafter enumerates bequests, articles, or claims in structured sequence. It is the opening term of an ordered list, carrying the same structural role as "first" or "firstly" in modern drafting, but with the added formality of Latin convention.
In wills specifically, its placement and scope have generated interpretive questions: courts have had to determine whether the clause introduced by *imprimis* stands apart from or relates to subsequent enumerated items, particularly when bequest language turns on whether the testator intended a global preliminary gift or a discrete initial legacy.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "In the first place (used to introduce a list of items or considerations)."
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "In the first place; first in order."
The common and legal meanings are essentially the same in substance. The distinction worth noting for researchers is register and function: in ordinary prose, *imprimis* is a rhetorical flourish; in legal instruments, it carries drafting weight. Courts have had to interpret what a testator or pleader intended by leading with *imprimis* rather than treating it as mere stylistic ornament.
Common Confusion
*Imprimis* should not be confused with *imprimatur* (a license or authorization to print, or more generally, an official sanction). The two Latin terms share a prefix but are unrelated in legal function. *Imprimis* is a sequencing adverb; *imprimatur* is a noun denoting authorization. In historical legal sources, particularly those touching on ecclesiastical or censorship matters, both may appear, but they serve entirely different purposes.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working with historical wills, probate records, inventories, and pleadings — particularly from the colonial period through the nineteenth century — will encounter *imprimis* as the standard opening of enumerated clauses. Its presence is a navigational cue: it signals that the document is structured as a numbered or ordered series, and that the *imprimis* clause should be read as the first in a connected sequence.
The interpretive trap lies in will construction. Courts in New Jersey, Maine, Pennsylvania, and English equity have addressed whether the *imprimis* clause of a will operates independently or as a preamble conditioning everything that follows. Rapalje & Lawrence flags this specifically, citing cases from New Jersey (1 Halst. 137), Maine (59 Me. 325), Pennsylvania (3 Pa. 386), and English Chancery (4 Madd. 168). Researchers analyzing nineteenth-century probate disputes should check whether the court treated *imprimis* as introducing a self-contained bequest or as a framing clause that qualified subsequent items.
In corpus searches, be aware that *imprimis* will appear in proximity to *item* — its companion term for second and subsequent entries in a list. The pair *imprimis* / *item* is the standard structural vocabulary of historical legal enumeration. Searching for one without the other may give an incomplete picture of the instrument's structure.
Also note: Rapalje & Lawrence's entry conflates *imprimis* with *imprisii* (adherents or accomplices) in a compressed dictionary format typical of the period. These are entirely unrelated terms. Researchers using that source should take care not to carry notes across the entry boundary.
Historical Dictionary Support
All three source dictionaries agree on the core definition: "in the first place; first of all." Black's (both editions) offers no elaboration beyond the Latin gloss. Rapalje & Lawrence is the most practically useful of the three for legal research purposes, because it moves immediately to the term's operative significance — the effect of *imprimis* in a will — and provides case citations across multiple jurisdictions. This reflects the practical, case-oriented character of Rapalje & Lawrence compared to the more definitional approach of Black's.
What none of the historical dictionaries address is the term's relationship to documentary structure more broadly: its role in inventories, pleadings, and instruments beyond wills. That interpretive context must be reconstructed from the instruments themselves and from probate and equity practice materials.