Definition
Latitpat is an archaic writ in old English common law practice, issued in personal actions when the sheriff returned a writ with the notation *non est inventus* — meaning the defendant could not be found within the jurisdiction. The writ's name derives from the Latin *latitat* ("he lurks" or "he hides"), reflecting the legal fiction that the defendant was concealing himself to avoid service of process. Latitpat functioned as a successor or companion writ in the sequence of mesne process used to compel a defendant's appearance in court when ordinary summons had failed.
The writ was part of a procedural chain: when a defendant could not be located to receive process, the law presumed he was hiding, and the latitpat authorized further steps — typically arrest — to secure his presence. It was closely associated with the Court of King's Bench, where it became a standard instrument of original process in personal actions.
---
Common Confusion
Latitpat is sometimes conflated with the writ of *capias* or with the broader category of mesne process generally. The distinction matters: latitpat was a specific writ triggered by a *non est inventus* return, not a general arrest writ. It also should not be confused with *latitat*, which is the closely related writ more commonly associated with King's Bench practice in later periods. The two terms share the same Latin root and overlapping function, and historical sources use them inconsistently — researchers should treat them as near-synonyms in many contexts while remaining alert to procedural distinctions in the specific court and period under examination.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Latitpat is essentially a dead term in modern practice and will not appear in contemporary legal materials. Its research relevance is exclusively historical — primarily English common law before the procedural reforms of the nineteenth century (the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 and related reforms largely abolished the old mesne process machinery).
Researchers encountering latitpat in historical records should understand the procedural sequence it occupied: original writ → sheriff's return of *non est inventus* → latitpat or latitat → capias or arrest. Missing this sequence can cause a researcher to misread the posture of a historical case or misunderstand why a particular writ was issued.
The source material for this entry is incomplete — Black's 2nd edition entry is truncated, cutting off mid-sentence ("a bill of Mid-"). This is a meaningful research trap. The full entry almost certainly referenced the bill of Middlesex, a foundational procedural fiction used by King's Bench to expand its jurisdiction. Researchers relying solely on Black's 2nd for this term will have an incomplete picture and should consult earlier and more comprehensive treatments, including Blackstone's *Commentaries*, Tidd's *Practice of the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas*, or the original edition of Black's.
Jurisdictional scope is narrow: this writ is specific to English common law courts, primarily King's Bench. It has no American successor and does not appear in U.S. federal or state procedural history in any meaningful way.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) places latitpat squarely in "old English practice" and ties it to the *non est inventus* return in personal actions — confirming its role as a reactive writ triggered by failed service. The entry's truncation at "a bill of Mid-" strongly suggests a reference to the bill of Middlesex, a procedural device by which King's Bench assumed jurisdiction over defendants by alleging they were in Middlesex county. Latitpat and latitat were the instruments that extended this fiction when defendants could not be found.
Historical legal dictionaries more broadly — including Bouvier's and Jacob's — treat latitat as the more prominent term, with latitpat appearing as a variant or earlier form. The Latin root *latitare* (to lurk, to hide) is common to both, and the underlying legal fiction — that an absent defendant is deliberately evading process rather than simply absent — is consistent across all treatments. This fiction was a commonplace of English procedural law and was understood as such by contemporary practitioners; it carried no accusatory moral weight in practice.
What historical sources largely omit is any critical analysis of the writ's role in King's Bench's jurisdictional expansion. The use of latitat and the bill of Middlesex to pull cases away from Common Pleas was a significant and contested development in English legal history, but dictionary treatments confine themselves to procedural description.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Latitpat is exclusive to pre-reform English common law, primarily the Court of King's Bench. It has no direct equivalent in American procedural law. Researchers working in colonial American legal records may encounter adapted forms of English mesne process, but latitpat as a named writ is not a feature of American practice.
---