Definition
Non assumpsit infra sex annos is a Latin pleading formula meaning "he did not undertake within six years." It was the formal plea by which a defendant in an assumpsit action invoked the statute of limitations, asserting that the plaintiff's cause of action had not arisen — or that the defendant's alleged promise had not been made — within the six-year period prescribed by law. When pleadings were conducted in Latin, this phrase constituted the defendant's affirmative defense that the plaintiff's right to sue was time-barred.
The plea operates as a denial not of the underlying promise or obligation, but of the plaintiff's entitlement to bring the action within the allowable window. It does not contest the merits; it contests the timeliness.
Common Confusion
Non assumpsit infra sex annos is sometimes conflated with non assumpsit, the general denial plea in assumpsit actions, which simply asserts "he did not promise." These are distinct pleas with entirely different functions. Non assumpsit contests whether a promise was ever made. Non assumpsit infra sex annos concedes (or leaves open) that a promise may have been made, while asserting that the plaintiff waited too long to sue. Confusing them in historical pleading records will cause a researcher to misread the nature of the defense being raised.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working with common law pleading records, particularly English court materials and early American case files predating the shift to English-language pleading, will encounter this phrase in its abbreviated Latin form. Several points of practical importance:
First, the plea belongs to the assumpsit family of actions, which governed informal contracts and promises. Seeing this plea in a record immediately confirms the action sounded in assumpsit and that the defendant chose a limitations defense rather than a merits defense — a meaningful signal about litigation strategy and the likely strength of the underlying claim.
Second, the six-year period was standard under the English Statute of Limitations (21 Jac. 1, c. 16, 1623), which was widely adopted or mirrored by American colonies and early states. However, the applicable period varied by action type and jurisdiction. A researcher should not assume a six-year bar without confirming which statute governed in the forum and period at issue. Some jurisdictions adopted shorter periods for certain assumpsit claims.
Third, after law reformers abolished Latin pleading in England (largely through the Hilary Rules of 1834 and subsequent reforms) and in American jurisdictions through code pleading reforms beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, this Latin formula disappeared from live practice. It survives in annotated records, digests, and older treatises. Its presence in a source is itself a dating clue: you are almost certainly looking at pre-reform common law pleading.
Fourth, the plea is an affirmative defense, meaning the burden of raising it fell on the defendant. Failure to plead it could constitute waiver. Researchers examining appellate records should look for this plea in the lower court record to determine whether a limitations argument was preserved.
Historical Dictionary Support
Both Rapalje & Lawrence and Bouvier agree on the core meaning: this is the formal Latin plea for the statute of limitations in assumpsit. Bouvier provides slightly more procedural texture, noting that the plea asserted both that the obligation was not undertaken and that the right of action had not accrued within six years — a useful clarification that the formula addressed timing of accrual, not merely the original promise. Rapalje & Lawrence is more compressed, giving the translation and the functional label without elaboration.
Bouvier's note that "it is still in use" at the time of his writing reflects the persistence of Latin pleading forms in American practice well after English reforms had begun to displace them — a reminder that American jurisdictions were not uniform in the pace of procedural modernization. Neither dictionary discusses the plea's relationship to equitable tolling doctrines or fraudulent concealment exceptions, which are relevant research considerations when the plea appears in contested records.
Jurisdictional Note
The six-year limitations period embedded in this plea derives from English statute and was not universally replicated. American states enacted their own limitations statutes with varying periods for contract actions; some adopted shorter periods for oral contracts versus written ones. A researcher should treat the "six years" in the phrase as reflecting English common law baseline, not as confirmation of the applicable period in any specific American jurisdiction.