Definition
A Latin phrase of obscure provenance applied to the act of a court when it prompted or suggested to an advocate something he had omitted through mistake or ignorance. In practice, the expression described a judicial intervention — a court stepping in to supply a point of law or procedure that counsel had overlooked or failed to raise. The phrase appears in historical legal writing as a description of judicial conduct rather than as a term of art with operative legal consequences.
---
Common Confusion
Burrill's speculative comparison to "fencing a court" — a Scots law expression for formally constituting or opening a court proceeding — should not be read as an established equivalence. The two phrases may share structural similarity, but they describe different acts: infensare curiam describes a court's intervention on behalf of counsel, while fencing a court describes a procedural formality attending the court's own constitution. Treating them as synonyms would be an error in historical legal research.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term will appear almost exclusively in historical legal dictionaries and the sources they cite — primarily Spelman's Glossarium Archaiologicum — and has no meaningful modern usage. Researchers encountering it should treat it as a descriptor of medieval or early modern English court practice, not as a doctrinal category with defined elements or ongoing legal significance.
The more important research signal here is evidentiary: the term illustrates that early common law courts exercised an active, interventionist role relative to counsel — a posture markedly different from the modern adversarial norm of judicial passivity. When researching the historical role of courts in guiding pleading, the history of judicial assistance to litigants, or the development of the adversarial system, this phrase may surface as a data point rather than a governing rule.
Researchers should note that the chain of authority for this term is thin. Both Black's editions trace back to Spelman, and Spelman himself offered no translation of infensare. Burrill flags this gap honestly, noting the word's meaning is not resolved by Spelman and speculating — without confidence — that it may share roots with the old Scots expression "to fence a court." That Scottish parallel is itself an independent avenue of inquiry for researchers working in Scots law or comparative legal history. Burrill's speculation should not be treated as settled interpretation.
The term does not appear to have generated case law or statutory usage. Any instance of it in primary sources will almost certainly be a secondary quotation or learned commentary rather than operative legal language.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The three source dictionaries tell a consistent but narrow story. Black's first and second editions offer near-identical entries, both drawing on Spelman as the sole authority. Burrill adds the most substantive analysis, acknowledging directly that Spelman provides no translation and offering the tentative comparison to the Scots "fence a court" idiom — a phrase associated with the formal opening or constituting of a court — as a possible etymological bridge.
The convergence of all three dictionaries on a single historical source (Spelman) without further elaboration signals the limits of the documentary record. No dictionary attempts to connect the term to a body of cases or a continuing legal practice. This is consistent with a phrase that was already antiquarian by the time these dictionaries were compiled. Researchers should not expect deeper dictionary authority to exist; the trail ends at Spelman.
---