Definition
A writ commanding that a person be allowed to have and enjoy a free chase appurtenant to his manor. Specifically, it was a judicial writ issued after a jury inquiry had confirmed that the right to a free chase lawfully belonged to the applicant. The writ's function was confirmatory and possessory: it followed a finding of right and directed that the claimant's lawful enjoyment of the chase not be disturbed.
The term is Latin and translates roughly as "to have a free chase." It belongs to the medieval English system of franchise writs — procedural instruments by which subjects sought royal confirmation or restoration of particular property rights and hunting privileges.
---
Common Language
The word "chase" in modern English commonly refers to the act of pursuing something. In American legal and everyday usage, it carries no specialized property meaning.
In historical English usage, however, a "chase" was a recognized form of property right — specifically, a right to hunt over land, including the land of others, within a defined territory. It was less formal than a royal forest but more extensive than a private park. Webster's 1913 defines "chase" in this sense as "a tract of ground, unenclosed, for keeping or hunting wild animals; also, the right of keeping or hunting wild animals on another's land."
The gap matters: a researcher encountering "chase" in medieval or early modern sources who reads it in its modern sense will miss the entire proprietary and territorial dimension of the term.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term surfaces almost exclusively in the context of medieval English franchise law and the writs associated with it. Researchers should be aware of several navigational considerations.
First, the writ belongs to a family of related franchise writs — including writs touching free warren, free fishery, and similar franchises — that were part of the larger structure of royal grants and manorial rights. Understanding LIBERA CHASEA HABENDA requires understanding that family of instruments, not merely the single writ.
Second, the procedural mechanism is important: this was a post-inquest writ, meaning it issued only after a jury had already returned a finding that the right belonged to the petitioner. It was not an initial claim vehicle. Researchers consulting plea rolls or year books should look for the underlying inquest alongside the writ itself.
Third, the writ is largely obsolete in practice and has no modern American counterpart. It appears in English legal history materials, early treatises on manorial law, and occasionally in digest compilations of ancient writs. It will not appear in contemporary statutory or case law research, and researchers who encounter it in a historical corpus should treat it as a relic of feudal land tenure and franchise rights.
Fourth, the Wharton citation in Black's is a reference to John Jane Smith Wharton's Law Lexicon (various 19th-century editions), suggesting the entry was drawn from English legal dictionary tradition rather than American practice. Researchers relying on Black's for this term should understand they are receiving a condensed English law definition, not an American formulation.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary provides the only entry in the Law Mind source corpus. The definition tracks a standard formulation drawn from English legal lexicography, citing Wharton, and is consistent with broader treatments of franchise writs in historical English legal literature.
The entry is accurate as far as it goes but is thin. It identifies the writ and its triggering mechanism (jury inquiry) but does not contextualize the writ within the broader franchise system, distinguish it from related writs (free warren, free fishery), or note the conditions under which the underlying right to a free chase could be claimed. Researchers relying on Black's alone will have the definition but not the framework.
Historical English sources, including Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium and later digest collections of writs, provide more expansive treatment of the procedural requirements and the range of franchise writs, though these are outside the present corpus.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This writ has no application in American law. It is a product of the English feudal tenure and franchise system and is of purely historical and comparative interest for American legal researchers. Researchers working in English legal history, particularly on manorial records, plea rolls, or early modern land law, will encounter it in its proper context.
---