NON DISTRINGENDO

Definition

Non distringendo is a writ directing that a person or their goods not be distrained. The phrase is Latin for "not to distrain" or "not to be distrained." In practice, it operated as a prohibition against the seizure of a party's property by way of distraint — a remedy by which a landlord, lord of a manor, or creditor could take a tenant's or debtor's goods as security for an unpaid obligation or as compulsion to perform a duty. The writ served a protective function: it issued to restrain a party who was wrongfully proceeding, or threatening to proceed, by distraint when no legal basis for that remedy existed, or when the person sought to be distrained held a privilege or exemption from such seizure. ---

Common Confusion

Non distringendo is frequently encountered in historical sources immediately adjacent to other writs governing distraint — including replevin and distringas — and the terms can blur together. Distringas is the writ commanding a sheriff to distrain someone (compelling appearance or compliance). Non distringendo is its functional opposite: a writ forbidding distraint. Replevin, by contrast, is the action by which goods already taken by distraint are recovered. Researchers conflating these terms will reach opposite conclusions about whether a writ was offensive (commanding distraint) or defensive (prohibiting it). ---

Why It Matters in Research

Non distringendo is an archaic procedural writ that appears almost exclusively in pre-twentieth century English and early American legal materials. Researchers will encounter it primarily in: 1. Historical pleading manuals and writ registers, where it appears alongside distringas and other prerogative writs in discussions of the forms of action. 2. Early American codifications and digests. The Georgia Code reference (Code Ga. 1882, § 3472) in Black's first edition is notable — it suggests the writ retained at least nominal statutory acknowledgment in some American jurisdictions into the late nineteenth century, long after it had become obsolete in English practice. 3. Property and landlord-tenant disputes in historical records, where distraint was a live remedy and writs prohibiting it carried practical significance. The writ has no modern procedural counterpart by this name. Contemporary law has replaced the writs-based system with statutory and equitable injunctive relief. A modern researcher looking for the functional equivalent should search for injunctions against wrongful levy, exemption statutes, or stay provisions in execution proceedings — not this writ by name. One research trap: both editions of Black's embed non distringendo within a dense sequence of Latin maxims, and the entry boundaries are not always cleanly typeset in digitized versions. The immediately following maxim — non dubitatur, etsi specialiter venditor evictionem non promiserit... — concerns vendor liability on eviction and is entirely unrelated. Researchers skimming digitized text may accidentally merge these entries. ---

Historical Dictionary Support

Both editions of Black's Law Dictionary define non distringendo consistently and tersely: "a writ not to distrain" (2nd edition) or "a writ not the act of the party... to distrain" (1st edition, where the text appears partially corrupted in transmission). The substantive content is identical across editions. Neither edition provides historical case authority, treatise support, or procedural context beyond the bare definition and the Georgia Code cite in the first edition. What the historical dictionaries miss is significant. They do not explain who could obtain the writ, under what circumstances it issued, or how it related to the broader forms-of-action system. Researchers needing that depth should consult Blackstone's Commentaries, Glanvill, or the historical Register of Writs rather than relying on dictionary entries alone. The embedded maxim non dubitatur, etsi specialiter venditor evictionem non promiserit, re evicta, ex empto competere actionem — which appears immediately after both dictionary entries — concerns a wholly separate principle of Roman and civil law governing vendor warranty on eviction. Its placement is a typographic artifact of alphabetical sequencing, not a doctrinal connection to non distringendo. ---

Jurisdictional Note

Non distringendo was primarily an English common law writ with roots in the medieval writ system. Its application in American law was limited and uneven; the Georgia statutory reference suggests some states formally preserved it, while others simply absorbed equivalent protections into general equity jurisdiction or statutory exemption schemes. It has no recognized modern application in any U.S. jurisdiction. ---

Related Terms