INTERROGATORIES

5 definitions found across Law Mind sources

INTERROGATORIESAuthored
The Law Mind • 1014 words
Definition
Written questions submitted by one party to another party, witness, or other person, requiring written answers under oath. Interrogatories are a formal discovery tool used to gather information, narrow issues, and identify evidence before trial. In modern civil practice, interrogatories are governed by procedural rules (such as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33) and are directed primarily to parties — not non-party witnesses — who must respond in writing within a specified time. Answers are signed under oath and may be used at trial for impeachment or as admissions. Two distinct uses appear across legal history and remain relevant in some proceedings today: 1. Party interrogatories. Written questions served on an opposing party as part of pretrial discovery. The answering party responds in writing, under oath, within the time set by court rules. This is the dominant modern usage. 2. Testimonial interrogatories (depositions on written questions). Written questions submitted for use in taking testimony from a witness — either the interrogating party's own witness (direct interrogatories) or the opposing side's witness (cross-interrogatories). Answers are typically read aloud or recorded by an officer. This form is now largely superseded by oral depositions but remains available and appears throughout historical records.
Common Language
Wiktionary: Plural of interrogatory. Webster's 1913 does not list interrogatories as a standalone entry, treating it simply as the plural of interrogatory — a question or inquiry. The ordinary meaning tracks the legal meaning more closely than many legal terms, but the common usage suggests any set of questions. The legal meaning is narrower and more formal: interrogatories are written, sworn, procedurally governed instruments with defined consequences for failure to answer. The casual sense of "questions" carries none of that weight.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES Direct interrogatories. Questions submitted by the party calling a witness, covering the witness's affirmative testimony. Cross-interrogatories. Questions submitted by the opposing party to examine witnesses produced by the other side. Bouvier identifies this structure explicitly as part of the original form. Party interrogatories. The modern standard form — written questions from one litigant to another, answered under oath as part of civil discovery. Contention interrogatories. A subtype of party interrogatories asking a party to state the factual or legal basis for a specific claim or defense. Treated cautiously by courts; often deferred until discovery is substantially complete.
Why It Matters in Research
The term interrogatories covers two procedurally distinct practices that historical sources blend together. Researchers working with pre-twentieth-century materials will encounter interrogatories primarily in their testimonial form — questions submitted through a commissioner or examiner to obtain witness testimony, especially from distant or unavailable witnesses. This is fundamentally different from modern party discovery interrogatories, though both share the name. Conflating the two will produce misreadings of historical pleading records and equity proceedings. In equity practice, interrogatories were also used as a means of compelling a party to answer questions in the bill of complaint — a device with no precise modern equivalent, replaced partly by requests for admission and partly by deposition practice. Jurisdictional variation in limits, timing, and scope of modern interrogatories is significant: federal courts cap interrogatories at 25 (including subparts) without leave; state courts vary widely. Historical sources predate numerical limits entirely, so frequency and breadth of historical interrogatory sets should not be read as reflecting any standard practice. Researchers examining discovery disputes in cases from the mid-twentieth century should note that interrogatories were the primary written discovery tool before requests for production were fully developed. Their strategic role has diminished somewhat as document production has grown, but contention interrogatories remain heavily litigated and appear regularly in discovery motion practice. Cross-interrogatories in the testimonial context appear throughout chancery records, admiralty proceedings, and early American equity cases. When a historical source references "filing interrogatories" or "returning answers to interrogatories," it almost certainly refers to testimonial interrogatories, not modern party discovery.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary defines interrogatories as a set or series of written questions drawn up for the purpose of being propounded to a party in equity, a garnishee, or a witness whose testimony is taken on deposition. This definition reflects the dual function — party examination and witness examination — that characterized equity and early common law practice. The reference to garnishees is a useful reminder that interrogatories extended beyond the core adversarial parties. Bouvier's is the most precise of the historical sources: "material and pertinent questions in writing, to necessary points, exhibited for the examination of witnesses or persons who are to give testimony in the cause." Bouvier explicitly distinguishes direct interrogatories (by the calling party) from cross and counter interrogatories (by the adverse party), confirming that both sides participated in framing the written questions for witness examination. This structure is more elaborate than anything in modern party discovery practice. Rapalje & Lawrence offers the concise formulation — "written questions to be answered on oath" — and notes that answers are sometimes given verbally and transcribed, anticipating the hybrid form that would evolve into oral deposition practice. None of the historical dictionaries anticipate the modern numerical limits on interrogatories or the dominance of party-to-party (rather than witness-directed) usage. Researchers should not infer from historical definitions that interrogatories were unlimited in number or unrestricted in scope; local court rules and equity practice imposed their own constraints, but those are not captured in the dictionary entries.
Jurisdictional Note
Federal courts limit interrogatories to 25 per party without leave of court. State court limits vary considerably — some states mirror the federal cap, others set higher limits or impose none by rule. In international and arbitral proceedings, written questions to witnesses remain more common than in U.S. federal practice, preserving a form closer to the historical testimonial interrogatory.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Discovery and Pretrial Procedure; Equity Practice and Chancery Procedure; Depositions.
Related Terms
Interrogatory (singular form) Deposition Deposition on written questions Requests for admission Requests for production Discovery Bill of discovery Cross-examination Garnishment (for historical interrogatory to garnishee context) Contention interrogatory Answer (to interrogatories) Objection (discovery)
INTERROGATORIESmain
Black's Law Dictionary • 1891
A set or series therefore not genuine interpretation. Id. 59. of written questions drawn up for the purpose Free or unrestricted interpretation (inter- of being propounded to a party in equity, a pretatio soluta) proceeds simply on the gen- garnishee, or a witness whose testimony is eral principles of interpretation in good faith, taken on deposition; a series of formal writ- not bound by any specific or superior princi- ten questions used in the judicial examina ple. Id. 59. tion of a party or a witness. In taking evi- Limited or restricted interpretation (in-dence on depositions, the interrogatories are terpretatio limitata) is when we are influ- usually prepared and settled by counsel, and enced by other principles than the strictly reduced to writing in advance of the exami- hermeneutic ones. Id. 60. Predestined interpretation (interpretatio predestinata) takes place if the interpreter, laboring under a strong bias of mind, makes the text subservient to his preconceived views or desires. This includes artful interpreta- tion, (interpretatio vafer,) by which the in- terpreter seeks to give a meaning to the text other than the one he knows to have been in- tended. Id. 60. It is said to be either “legal," which rests on the same authority as the law itself, or "doctrinal," which rests upon its intrinsic reasonableness. Legal interpretation may be either "authentic," when it is expressly provided by the legislator, or "usual,” when it is derived from unwritten practice. Doc- trinal interpretation may turn on the mean- ing of words and sentences, when it is called "grammatical," or on the intention of the legislator, when it is described as "logical." When logical interpretation stretches the words of a statute to cover its obvious mean- | nation. Interrogatories are either direct or cross, the former being those which are put on be- half of the party calling a witness; the latter are those which are interposed by the adverse party.
INTERROGATORIESmain
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) • 1910
enced by other principles than the strictly hermeneutic ones. Id. 60. Predestined interpretation (interpret atio predestinata) takes place if the interpreter, laboring under a strong bias of mind, makes the text subservient to his preconceived views or desires. This includes artful interpretation, (interpretatio vafer,) by which the interpreter seeks to give a meaning to the text other than the one he knows to have been intended. Id. 60. It is said to be either “legal,’’ which rests on the same authority as the law itself, or “doctrinal,” which rests upon its intrinsic reasonableness. Legal interpretation may be either “authentic,” when it is expressly provided by the legislator, or “usual,’”? when it is derived from unwritten practice. Doctrinal interpretation may turn on the meaning of words and sentences, when it is called “grammatical,” or on the intention of the legislator, when it is described as “logical.” When logical interpretation stretches the words of a statute to cover its obvious meaning, it is called “extensive;” when, on the other hand, it avoids giving full meaning to the words, in order not to go beyond the intention of the legislator, it is called “restrictive.” Holl. Jur. 344. As to strict and liberal interpretation, see CONSTRUCTION, In the civil law, authentic interpretation of laws is that given by the legislator himself, which is obligatory on the courts. Cuwustomary interpretation (also called “usual’’) is that which arises from successive or concurrent decisions of the court on the same subject-matter, having regard to the spirit of the law, jurisprudence, usnges, and equity; as distinguished from “authentic” interpretation, which is that given by the legislator himself. Houston v. Robertson, 2 Tex. 28. —Interpretation clause. A section of a statute which defines the meaning of certain words occurring frequently in the other sections. A set or series of written questions drawn up for the purpose of being propounded to a party in equity, a garnishee, or a witness whose testimony is taken on deposition; a series of formal written questions used in the judicial examination of a party or a witness. In taking evidence on depositions, the interrogatories are usually prepared and settled by counsel, and reduced to writing in udvance of the examination. Interrogatories are either direct or cross, the former being those which are put on behalf of the party calling a witness; the latter are those which are interposed by the adverse party.
INTERROGATORIESmain
Rapalje & Lawrence • 1888
Written questions to be answered on oath. Sometimes the answers are given verbally and taken down in writing, as when a person is examined by interrogaprevent the exercise of the right. Id. 154; Shelf. R. P. Stat. 20, and the cases there cited. See further as to interruption, Co. Litt. 245b; Shelf. 180. 3. Interruption of the possession has no legal effect except as evidence of an interruption in the right. (See Gale 209; tories before an examiner or commisShelf 20; Co. Litt. 114b.) Interruption in sioner, but more generally the term is the right may prevent the acquisition of a used to denote interrogatories delivered by right by prescription, or may cause the one party to an action for the examinaacquisition of a qualified right, or may tion of the opposite party, who is compeldestroy a right which has been acquired. lable to answer them by affidavit. By this (Co. Litt. 113b, 114b; Gale and Shelf. 1. c.) means a plaintiff is enabled in many cases By the English Prescription Act (q. v.) no to ascertain whether he has a good cause act or other matter shall be deemed to be of action, or obtain admissions in support an interruption so as to prevent the acquiof his case. (See ANSWER; DISCOVERY.) sition of a right under the act unless it The practice of administering interrogashall have been submitted to or acquiesced tories is derived from the old practice in for one year after notice. (84.) But an in Chancery. (Dan. Ch. Pr. 404.) Interrogatories are annexed to a commission to take testimony; to a bill for discovery, and are used in proceedings to bring a party into contempt. Interruptio multiplex non tollit præscriptionem semel obtentam (2 Inst. 654): Frequent interruption does not take away a prescription once secured.
interrogatoriesnoun
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributorsCC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
plural of interrogatory

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In