Definition
Non fecit vastum contra prohibitionem is a Latin pleading term meaning "he did not commit waste against the prohibition." It is the name of the general denial plea in an action founded on a writ of estrepement — a writ designed to restrain a tenant or other party from committing waste on land during the pendency of litigation. When a plaintiff brought such an action alleging that the defendant had committed waste in defiance of a court's prohibitory writ, the defendant could enter this plea to deny the charge. The plea functioned as the general issue in that proceeding, placing the central factual allegation — that waste was committed contrary to the prohibition — directly in dispute.
Common Confusion
Non fecit vastum contra prohibitionem is sometimes run together with non impedivit, the general issue plea in quare impedit proceedings. The two are distinct. Non impedivit ("he did not impede") answers allegations of obstruction to the presentation of a clerk to a church benefice. Non fecit vastum contra prohibitionem answers allegations of physical waste committed against a court's prohibition. Both are Latin general-issue pleas arising in specialized common-law actions, but they belong to entirely different procedural contexts. Researchers searching early pleading records should not treat these as interchangeable.
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in sources covering the old common-law forms of action and is essentially a fossil of pre-code civil procedure. Its practical significance in primary source research is narrow but specific: it surfaces in pleading records, abridgments, and practice manuals from the English common law tradition and early American jurisdictions that had not yet abolished the forms of action.
Researchers working in Law Mind's corpus should note several navigational points. First, the term is inseparable from the writ of estrepement — understanding what estrepement was (a preventive writ against waste pending litigation) is prerequisite to understanding what this plea denied. Any corpus search for non fecit vastum contra prohibitionem will be unproductive without parallel searches for estrepement and waste. Second, because this plea was a general-issue denial rather than a special plea, it carried specific procedural consequences under the older system: it put the whole cause at issue rather than confessing and avoiding one element. Third, the term disappears from American legal literature rapidly after the nineteenth-century merger of law and equity and the abolition of the forms of action in most jurisdictions. Sources from the mid-nineteenth century onward that discuss estrepement and waste will generally not use this plea form at all, having replaced it with code pleading equivalents. Finally, the Bouvier's entry is truncated — the full entry appears to have been cut off — meaning researchers relying solely on that edition may find the definition incomplete.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary provides the only historical dictionary entry available for this term, and it is brief. Bouvier defines the plea by its Latin meaning and situates it correctly within the action on a writ of estrepement, citing Blackstone's Commentaries at 2 Bl. Com. 226–227. The citation to Blackstone is the authoritative anchor: Blackstone's treatment of estrepement in the second volume of the Commentaries explains both the writ and the pleading framework that gave rise to this plea form. Bouvier adds no significant doctrinal elaboration beyond naming and locating the plea. No other historical dictionary in the Law Mind shelf — including Black's Law Dictionary in its early editions — appears to give this term a dedicated entry, treating it instead under the broader entries for estrepement or waste. The absence of independent treatment in multiple sources reflects the narrow, procedurally specific nature of the term: it was never a substantive legal concept in its own right but rather a term of art belonging entirely to the machinery of a now-abolished form of action.
Jurisdictional Note
This plea form was a product of English common law procedure and was carried into early American practice in jurisdictions that retained the forms of action. It ceased to have operational significance as American states adopted code pleading through the mid-to-late nineteenth century. No modern American jurisdiction employs this plea.