Definition
Non infregit conventionem (Latin: "he did not break the covenant/contract") is a plea historically interposed in the common law action of covenant, by which a defendant denied having breached the agreement sued upon. It was framed as a general issue — a blanket denial intended to put the plaintiff to proof of the whole case — but was consistently held to be a bad plea on the ground that the action of covenant admits no proper general issue. Because covenant required the defendant to respond with specific pleadings rather than a sweeping denial, courts rejected this plea as technically defective.
---
Common Confusion
Non infregit conventionem is sometimes treated as the covenant equivalent of non assumpsit (the general issue in assumpsit) or non est factum (a denial of the deed). The analogy is imprecise and historically misleading. Non assumpsit was a recognized and valid general issue in actions of assumpsit; non infregit conventionem was never accorded the same status in covenant. Non est factum denies the execution or authenticity of the instrument itself, which is a distinct inquiry. Conflating these pleas in historical research can produce errors about what defenses were available and how they functioned procedurally.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is almost exclusively of historical procedural significance. Researchers encounter it primarily in materials dealing with common law pleading — particularly in sources covering the action of covenant and the rules governing special pleading before the reforms of the nineteenth century.
The critical research point is negative: the plea was bad law. Finding non infregit conventionem in historical pleadings records or practice manuals does not mean a court accepted it. It more likely signals a pleading defect, a demurrer, or a discussion of why the plea failed. Researchers tracing the history of contract defenses or the evolution of pleading rules should treat every appearance of this phrase as an occasion to examine the court's response, not assume the plea was operative.
The distinction between covenant and assumpsit is central here. The action of covenant lay only on sealed instruments; assumpsit covered informal contracts and had the convenience of a general issue. This structural asymmetry — covenant's lack of a usable general issue — is one reason assumpsit gradually displaced covenant in practice even for disputes that might technically have sounded in covenant. Researchers studying the shift from formal to informal contract actions in early American and English law will find this plea, and its rejection, illustrative of that pressure.
Tidd's Practice, cited in both source dictionaries, is the primary authority on this point and should be consulted for the procedural mechanics. The New York report cited in Burrill (3 Hill's N.Y. Reports 187) offers a glimpse of how American courts handled the same pleading problem in the early nineteenth century.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's and Burrill agree entirely on substance: the plea means "he did not break the contract/covenant," it was intended as a general issue in the action of covenant, and it was held bad because that action has no proper general issue. Both cite Tidd's Practice as authority, though at different page references (1 Tidd, Pr. 356 in Black's; 1 Tidd's Pr. 648 in Burrill), which likely reflects different editions. Burrill adds the New York citation, making it marginally more useful for American jurisdictional research.
Neither dictionary contextualizes the plea within the broader decline of the action of covenant or explains why the absence of a general issue in covenant mattered practically. Researchers should not expect historical dictionaries to supply that analytical frame — it must come from treatise and procedural history sources.
Burrill's entry also runs on to include the maxim "Non in legendo sed in intelligendo leges consistunt," which is an unrelated entry beginning on the same page of Burrill's source text. This is a printing artifact, not a connected legal concept.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The action of covenant and its associated pleading rules were inherited from English common law and applied broadly in early American courts. The specific rule that covenant lacks a general issue was recognized in New York and likely in other common law jurisdictions. Nineteenth-century procedural reforms (including code pleading under the Field Code and its successors) rendered these distinctions largely academic in American practice.
---