Definition
Ne exeat (Latin: "let him not depart") is an equitable writ issued by a court to prohibit a person from leaving the jurisdiction without the court's permission. Its essential function is preventive: it holds a person within reach of the court so that a judgment or decree can be enforced against them, or so that their presence as a party or obligor is secured pending litigation.
In modern American practice, ne exeat is most commonly encountered in two contexts:
1. Family law. Courts issue ne exeat orders to prevent a parent from removing a child — or themselves — from the jurisdiction in circumstances where relocation would frustrate child custody, support, or visitation proceedings. In this context the writ operates less as ancient equity and more as a specialized injunctive device.
2. General equity. Courts may issue the writ to prevent a defendant from absconding with assets or their person where doing so would render a pending decree unenforceable. It may be coupled with a requirement that the restrained party post bond or other security.
The writ does not operate as an arrest. Its enforcement runs through the contempt power: a person who departs in violation of a ne exeat order is subject to contempt proceedings.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "A common law writ prohibiting the departure of a person or of property from the jurisdiction of a court."
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "A writ to restrain a person from leaving the country, or the jurisdiction of the court. The writ was originally applicable to purposes of state, but is now an ordinary process of courts of equity, resorted to for the purpose of obtaining bail, or security to abide a decree."
The Latin phrase translates literally as an imperative command — "let him not go out" — and the common-language definitions capture this accurately. The gap that matters for researchers is the phrase "or of property." Wiktionary extends the writ to property; historically, ne exeat was a writ directed at persons, not property. Restraint of assets was accomplished through other equitable devices such as injunction or sequestration. Researchers encountering the writ in historical sources should not assume a property-restraining function simply because a modern gloss suggests one.
Common Confusion
Ne exeat is sometimes conflated with a civil arrest (capias) or with a temporary restraining order. These are distinct. A capias effects physical detention; ne exeat merely prohibits departure and compels security. A temporary restraining order enjoins conduct generally; ne exeat is specifically jurisdictional in purpose. In family law, ne exeat orders are also occasionally confused with Hague Convention remedies for international child abduction — related in policy but entirely separate in mechanism and legal source.
Why It Matters in Research
Several research traps attach to this term.
Shift from state prerogative to private process. Both Rapalje & Lawrence and Burrill document that ne exeat was originally a high prerogative writ used for purposes of state — preventing subjects from departing England without royal permission, often in times of war or diplomatic crisis. Its migration to purely private equity practice in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was gradual and is not always marked clearly in the sources. A researcher reading an early English case involving ne exeat may be reading a state-law instrument that has almost no doctrinal connection to the modern domestic-relations writ bearing the same name.
American jurisdictional variation. The writ's availability and procedural requirements vary significantly across American states. Some states have abolished the writ by statute or court rule and replaced it with statutory injunctive remedies. Others retain it as a distinct equitable device. Researchers should not assume uniform availability.
Family law dominance in modern sources. Because ne exeat appears most frequently in contemporary case law in the family law context — particularly child custody — researchers using full-text search in the Law Mind corpus will find the modern results skewed heavily toward domestic relations. Filtering by date and subject matter is essential when researching historical equity practice.
Bond and security requirement. Historical sources treat the bond or security requirement as integral to the writ — Burrill's entry breaks off mid-sentence but clearly heads in this direction, and Kent's formulation in Webster's 1913 states the security purpose explicitly. Modern courts vary on whether security is mandatory or discretionary. This distinction matters when tracing doctrinal lineage.
Corpus connections. Ne exeat sits at the intersection of equity jurisdiction, contempt practice, and (in modern law) family court procedure. Researchers following this term should be prepared to move across those bodies of doctrine.
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence and Burrill agree on the core historical account: English origin as a prerogative state writ, subsequent extension to private equity practice, and issuance from courts of chancery. Both frame it as a device to prevent departure from the kingdom or state, with the restraint serving the court's power to enforce its decrees.
Rapalje & Lawrence is the more complete entry, citing Daniell's Chancery Practice, Hunter on Suits in Equity, and Beames's dedicated treatise on ne exeat — the last being the principal English monograph on the subject. The citation to Sobey v. Sobey (L.R. 15 Eq. 200) places the writ in Victorian equity practice. Burrill's entry, though truncated in the available text, emphasizes the writ's function in preventing the withdrawal of a person or property from jurisdiction — the property extension that, as noted above, researchers should treat with caution.
What both historical dictionaries understate is the writ's later career in American family law, which postdates their composition. Neither source anticipates the child-removal context that now dominates American practice. Researchers relying solely on these sources will have an accurate account of the writ's origins but an incomplete picture of its contemporary application.
Jurisdictional Note
In the United States, ne exeat is most robustly preserved as an independent equitable writ in states with strong chancery traditions. Several states have folded its function into general injunctive relief statutes and no longer recognize ne exeat as a formally distinct remedy. In family law, some states authorize ne exeat orders by explicit domestic-relations statute, which may modify or displace the traditional equitable requirements, including the bond condition.