Definition
Non infregit conventio (Latin: "he has not broken the covenant") is a plea in an action of covenant by which a defendant denies having breached the specific covenant or covenants alleged in the plaintiff's declaration. The plea operates as a direct traverse — a denial — of the breach charged, rather than as a general issue that puts the entire matter in dispute. Because it is a negative plea (denying a breach), it cannot be used where the breach alleged is itself stated in the negative; to do so would create a negative pregnant, an impermissible double negative in pleading logic.
Common Confusion
Non infregit conventio is sometimes loosely described as a "general issue" in covenant actions, but this is incorrect. The general issue in covenant was technically the plea of non est factum (denial that the deed was made), which put the execution of the instrument itself at issue. Non infregit conventio admits the covenant's existence but denies its breach — a narrower and more specific traverse. Researchers encountering early common-law pleading records should not treat these pleas as interchangeable.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is unlikely to appear outside of historical common-law pleading records, primarily English and early American cases from the seventeenth through early nineteenth centuries, when formal pleading rules governed the precise form of every responsive plea. Several research traps apply:
First, the limitation on negative breaches is a recurring point of pleading failure in historical cases. Where a plaintiff alleged that a defendant failed to do something (a negative breach), the defendant could not respond with this plea — both sides would then be denying the same negative, producing no issue for the jury to try. Understanding this rule is essential for interpreting why a plea of non infregit conventio succeeded or failed in a given case.
Second, the plea's scope is narrow. It traverses only the breach, not the existence or validity of the covenant itself. A defendant wishing to deny the covenant was ever made needed a different plea entirely. Researchers reading pleading records must track which element is actually being contested.
Third, this form of pleading was superseded in England by the Common Law Procedure Act 1852, and in American jurisdictions by the Field Code reforms beginning in 1848 and subsequent civil procedure modernization. After code pleading replaced common-law forms, this plea ceased to have operative legal significance. Any appearance of the term in post-code sources is almost certainly a historical reference or an archaic carryover.
Fourth, the corpus connections here run through actions of covenant broadly — a form of action that attached only where the obligation was contained in a sealed instrument (a deed). Researchers tracing contract disputes in early records must first determine whether the underlying action sounded in covenant, assumpsit, or debt, since each had distinct pleading rules and different available pleas.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary is the primary historical dictionary source for this term and treats it concisely: the plea denies breach, is not a general issue, and is unavailable where the breach alleged is negative in form. Bouvier's citations — Bacon's Abridgement under "Covenant (L)," along with case references from Levinz, Taunton, Aikens, Dallas, and Cowen — confirm that this was a settled pleading rule with consistent application across English and early American authority.
No meaningful divergence exists among historical sources on the operative rule. The term appears rarely in American dictionaries beyond Bouvier, reflecting its early obsolescence following procedural reform. Modern legal dictionaries omit it almost universally, which itself signals to researchers that the term belongs entirely to the pre-code common-law period.
Bacon's Abridgement remains the most accessible doctrinal treatment of covenant pleading for researchers working in this period and is the anchor citation Bouvier himself uses.
Jurisdictional Note
This plea was available in both English and early American common-law courts wherever the action of covenant was recognized. Jurisdictional variation in its availability tracked the underlying question of whether the action of covenant required a sealed instrument — a requirement that persisted longer in some American states than others. After procedural reform, the plea's formal use ended across all common-law jurisdictions.