Definition
In nullo est erratum (Latin: "in nothing is there error") is a plea in error — formally called a joinder in error — by which a party defends a judgment on appeal or writ of error by denying that any error exists in the record or proceedings below. The plea operates in the nature of a demurrer: rather than disputing facts, it concedes the record as it stands and submits to the court the pure question of whether that record contains any legal error. The filing of this plea immediately refers the matter to the court for judgment on the law.
---
Common Confusion
IN NULLO EST ERRATUM vs. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS: These two pleadings stand on opposite sides of the same proceeding. An assignment of errors is the appellant's (plaintiff in error's) affirmative identification of specific legal errors in the record below. In nullo est erratum is the respondent's (defendant in error's) denial of those errors in the aggregate. Researchers encountering one in a historical record should look for the other; together they frame the legal questions the reviewing court was asked to resolve.
IN NULLO EST ERRATUM vs. GENERAL DEMURRER: Both submit a pure legal question to the court without disputing underlying facts, and historical sources consistently describe the joinder in error as operating "in the nature of a demurrer." The distinction is procedural context: a general demurrer appears at the trial-court level in response to a pleading; in nullo est erratum appears at the appellate level in response to a writ of error. Conflating the two can cause a researcher to misplace a document's procedural stage.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is almost exclusively a creature of the writ-of-error system, which was the dominant mechanism for appellate review in English and American courts before modern appellate procedure displaced it. Researchers working in pre-twentieth-century American case records — federal and state — or in English common law sources will encounter this plea in the formal pleading sequence of error proceedings. After the writ of error was largely abolished (federally by the Judiciary Act of 1925 and the subsequent development of the certiorari system, and in most states by mid-century procedural reform), in nullo est erratum disappeared from active practice along with it.
Several navigational points for corpus researchers:
First, in nullo est erratum marks a specific moment in the procedural timeline. Its presence in a record means the defendant in error has been served, has appeared, and has formally joined issue on the legal questions — the case is past the assignment-of-errors stage and ripe for argument or decision. Dating a document relative to this plea helps sequence the record.
Second, the plea's demurrer-like character meant that, once filed, no factual dispute remained to resolve. The court had only to examine the record as written. Cases decided after this plea are pure law cases; researchers should not expect findings of fact.
Third, this term appears in early American reporters under variant spellings and abbreviations. Indexes in nineteenth-century reports may list it under "error," "joinder in error," or by its Latin tag. Cross-checking all three is advisable.
Fourth, the plea connects the English common law writ-of-error tradition directly into American appellate practice. Sources citing Tidd's Practice (a standard English procedural treatise) alongside Massachusetts or Virginia reporters illustrate this transatlantic continuity — useful for researchers tracing the reception of English procedure in early American courts.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
All four historical sources agree completely on substance: in nullo est erratum is the joinder in error, denies error in the record or proceedings, and operates in the nature of a demurrer that immediately submits the legal question to the court. The definitions are nearly identical across Black's (both editions), Rapalje & Lawrence, and Burrill, all citing the same primary authority — Tidd's Practice, volume 2, at page 1173 — and the same Massachusetts precedent (Chief Justice Shaw's discussion in the case reported at 7 Metcalf 285, 287). The uniformity reflects how settled and narrow this term's meaning was; there is no meaningful divergence to flag.
What the historical dictionaries do not address is the term's obsolescence. None signals that this plea was tied to the writ-of-error system specifically, or that changes in appellate procedure would render it a historical artifact. Modern researchers should treat all four entries as accurate descriptions of a procedure that no longer exists in this form in American or English courts.
---
Jurisdictional Note
In nullo est erratum was a feature of common law writ-of-error procedure and therefore appeared in any jurisdiction that received English common law pleading practice. Its obsolescence is likewise near-universal. Researchers working in Louisiana (civil law tradition) or in courts that adopted early code pleading reforms may find the term absent from local sources even in periods when it remained in use elsewhere.
---