Definition
Non dimisit (Law Latin: "he did not demise") is a plea in historical common law pleading. It functioned in two distinct procedural contexts:
1. As a defensive plea available to a defendant in an action of debt for rent, where the plaintiff had declared upon a demise (a leasing of land) without properly stating or incorporating the indenture. In this context, the plea denied that any demise had been made, challenging the legal foundation of the plaintiff's claim before the merits of the rent dispute were reached.
2. As a plea in bar in replevin proceedings, interposed against an avowry for arrears of rent. When a landlord sought to justify the taking of a tenant's goods by avowing (formally asserting) a right to distrain for unpaid rent, the party opposing that avowry could plead non dimisit — that the avowant had never in fact demised the property — thereby denying the landlord's foundational entitlement to collect rent at all.
In both applications, the plea operates as a general traverse: it puts the existence of the demise itself in issue rather than contesting the amount of rent, the timing of payment, or any other collateral matter.
---
Common Confusion
Non dimisit should not be confused with non tenure, which denies that the defendant holds the tenure alleged, or with nil habuit in tenementis, which denies the plaintiff's title in the tenement rather than the fact of the demise. All three pleas attack foundational prerequisites to a rent or land action, but they target different elements: non dimisit denies the act of leasing; nil habuit denies the plaintiff's ownership interest; non tenure denies the defendant's possessory relationship to the land. Researchers encountering any of these pleas in historical pleading records should identify precisely which foundational fact is being traversed before drawing conclusions about the nature of the dispute.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Non dimisit is an archaic pleading form that will appear almost exclusively in pre-nineteenth-century common law records — English court proceedings, early American colonial and state court records, and historical treatises on common law pleading practice. Researchers working in those corpora should be alert to several points.
First, the plea belongs to the technical world of common law special pleading, which was substantially displaced in England by the Common Law Procedure Acts of the mid-nineteenth century and in American jurisdictions by the adoption of code pleading and, later, modern rules of civil procedure. A plea labeled non dimisit in any post-1850 source almost certainly appears in a historical, academic, or comparative context rather than as a live procedural device.
Second, the two uses of the plea — in debt for rent versus in replevin against an avowry — require researchers to understand the surrounding procedural structure before interpreting what the plea accomplished in a given case. The same Latin phrase performed meaningfully different tactical functions depending on which action it appeared in.
Third, because the plea targets the existence of the demise rather than its terms, records involving non dimisit may be silent on the substance of any lease agreement. A historian or legal researcher hoping to reconstruct tenancy arrangements from pleading records will find this plea a frustrating dead end: if the plea succeeded, the case may have ended without any record of what leasing arrangement the parties actually had.
Fourth, this term connects directly to the broader architecture of real property actions and landlord-tenant law in the common law tradition. Researchers tracing the historical roots of modern landlord-tenant doctrine — particularly the legal prerequisites for recovering rent and the nature of a demise as a distinct legal act — will find non dimisit situated at an important structural junction in that history.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both the first and second editions of Black's Law Dictionary provide nearly identical definitions, reflecting the term's status as fixed historical legal vocabulary rather than evolving doctrine. Both editions correctly identify the two procedural contexts (debt for rent and replevin/avowry) and characterize the plea accurately as grounded in denial of the demise.
Neither edition situates the plea within the broader system of common law pleading from which it drew its meaning, nor do they explain why the absence of a stated indenture in the plaintiff's declaration created the opening for this plea. A researcher relying solely on Black's will understand what the plea asserted but may not understand why it was available or what strategic purpose it served. Historical pleading treatises — Gould's Treatise on the Principles of Pleading in Civil Actions and Stephen's Treatise on the Principles of Pleading, for example — provide the necessary procedural architecture.
The first-edition entry in the source material appears to include a fragment from an unrelated maxim ("things do not differ which agree in substance, though not in the same words"), attributable to Jenk. Cent. p. 70, case 32. This appears to be a transcription or compilation artifact and does not bear on the definition of non dimisit itself.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Non dimisit as a live pleading form is not operative in any modern American or English jurisdiction. Its practical relevance is exclusively historical. Researchers encountering it in American sources should note that adoption of code pleading (beginning with the New York Field Code of 1848) and later the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) eliminated the formal structure of common law special pleading within which this plea existed.
---