NON PONENDIS - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

NON PONENDISAuthored

The Law Mind • 764 words

Definition

Non ponendis in assisis et juratis (commonly shortened to non ponendis) is a Latin phrase from English common law meaning, literally, "not to be placed on assizes and juries." It refers to a privilege or exemption — typically granted by royal writ or charter — releasing a named individual or class of persons from compulsory service on assizes, juries, or similar inquisitorial bodies. The beneficiary of such a writ could not lawfully be impaneled or compelled to appear for jury duty within the scope of the exemption.

The writ was a prerogative instrument: the Crown, as the source of all jury process, could by the same authority exempt particular persons from that process. It operated as a personal privilege, not a challenge to any specific panel or verdict.

Why It Matters in Research

Non ponendis is a term that virtually disappears from practice after the rationalization of jury-exemption rules in the nineteenth century, making it a term researchers are most likely to encounter in early English reports, Year Books, abridgments, and colonial American materials that tracked English common law procedure closely.

Several research traps arise:

First, the phrase is frequently encountered in its abbreviated or partial form. Sources may cite only "non ponendis in assisis" or truncate further. Researchers should treat any Latin phrase beginning "non ponendis" as a reference to this writ class, not as a generic negating formula.

Second, the distinction between this writ and challenges to jurors (challenges for cause, peremptory challenges) is easy to miss in older materials. Non ponendis operated before impanelment — it was a categorical pre-exemption — whereas challenges operated after a panel was summoned. Historical sources that group them together under the heading of jury privilege can mislead.

Third, the Rapalje & Lawrence entry in the source material provided for this entry is notably unhelpful — it returns text for surrounding maxims (non haec in foedera veni; non impedit clausula derogatoria) with no substantive treatment of non ponendis itself. The Bouvier passage similarly does not address the writ, returning instead procedural material on motions for judgment. Researchers relying on the Law Mind corpus should be aware that the standard historical dictionaries consulted here offer no direct definitional support for this term, and must look to procedural treatises and older English abridgments (Fitzherbert, Rolle, Comyns) for authoritative exposition.

Fourth, because jury exemptions in American practice were quickly absorbed into statute, non ponendis as a named writ has essentially no American case law footprint. The concept survives — statutory exemptions from jury service remain common — but the Latin label does not.

Historical Dictionary Support

The source dictionaries consulted for this entry — Rapalje & Lawrence and Bouvier's Law Dictionary — do not contain usable entries for non ponendis in the passages retrieved. Rapalje & Lawrence returns adjacent Latin maxims with no text on the writ. Bouvier returns procedural case notes on motions for judgment, entirely unrelated. This silence is itself informative: by the time both dictionaries were compiled (mid-to-late nineteenth century), the writ had passed sufficiently out of active practice that neither work found it necessary to define it directly.

Older English authorities are more useful. Blackstone treats jury exemptions as incidents of royal favor exercised by writ. Comyns's Digest, under "Jurors," addresses exemptions by letters patent. The common thread across historical English sources is that non ponendis belonged to the same prerogative family as writs of protection — instruments by which the Crown managed the burdens of public legal service for favored subjects.

No historical dictionary surveyed in this corpus meaningfully addresses the writ's procedural mechanics, its scope limitations, or its interaction with local assize procedure. Researchers requiring authoritative historical treatment must engage directly with the English abridgment literature.

Jurisdictional Note

Non ponendis as a named writ is an English common law instrument with no direct American statutory descendant. American jurisdictions replaced the prerogative exemption model with legislatively defined categories of jury-service exemption. The writ concept is therefore relevant in American research only for the colonial period or for understanding the English procedural background of early state practice.

NON PONENDISmain

Rapalje & Lawrence • 1883

(874) Non hæc in fædera veni: I did not tices of assize, to inquire whether the magisagree to these terms. Non impedit clausula derogatoria quo minus ad eadem potestate res dissolvantur a qua constituuntur (Bacon): A derogatory clause does not impede things from being dissolved by the same power by which they are created.

NON PONENDISmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

156; or where special findings in plaintiff's favor were set aside as against undisputed evidence, and defendant moved for judg- ment on the remaining findings and undis- puted evidence; 91 Wis. 447. But such motion by defendant will not be granted where the defence is a general denial; 115 N. C. 402; or where the pleadings and evi- dence raise questions of fact proper for a jury; 67 N. W. Rep. (Wis.) 780; or where the evidence supports a verdict for plain- tiff, but the undisputed facts show the transaction to be within the statute of frauds; 25 S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 736. A reser- vation of "the question whether there is any evidence in this case, to be submitted to the jury, on which plaintiff is entitled to recover," does not present a "point reserved" to authorize judgment for de- fendant non obstante veredicto; 170 Pa. 346; 164 id. 78; nor can such judgment be rendered for plaintiff where verdict is for defendant, subject to the question re- served, whether, notwithstanding the find- ings, plaintiff was not entitled to recover ; 151 id. 415. A motion for such judgment is properly denied, after verdict upon an issue dis- tinctly raised by the answer and submitted to the jury without objection; 112 N. С. 102; or where the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict; 15 Ind. App. 188; or where there is a general finding for the party against whom the motion is made; 33 N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 1060; or where, after reserving a point on certain facts, other evidence is submitted to the jury, and it is uncertain on which evidence the jury found; 110 Pa. 1. It is not sufficient that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence; 42 Neb. 712; and the judgment can be en- tered only when the moving party is entitled to it upon the pleadings of the party who had the verdict; 43 Neb. 132. In Ohio, judgment against a general verdict cannot be entered unless all the facts necessary to support such judgment are expressly found; 66 Fed. Rep. 471. In Indiana, a judgment non obstante will not be granted unless there is an irreconcilable conflict between the general verdict and the answer to the interrogatories; 5 Ind. App. 204; 6 id. 52, 340, 646; 132 Ind. 278. When the special finding of facts is incon- sistent with the general verdict, the for- mer controls the latter, and the court may give judgment accordingly; 51 Kan. 781. In Oregon, there is a statutory provision authorizing judgment for the other party where the verdict does not correspond with pleadings, and it is held that that right is not impaired by failing to move for judg- ment before verdict; 21 Ore. 495. In Min- nesota, such judgment can be given only to a party who, after the testimony, moved to direct a verdict in his favor; 64 Minn. 136. In many states there are statutes on the subject which must be considered in con- nection with the decisions. NON OMITTAS (Lat. more fully, non omittas propter libertatem, do not omit on account of the liberty or franchise). In Practice. A writ which lies when the sheriff returns on a writ to him directed, that he hath sent to the bailiff of such a franchise, which hath return of writs, and he hath not served the writ; then the plaintiff shall have this writ directed to the sheriff, that he omit not on account of any franchise, but himself enter into the fran- chise and execute the king's writ. This clause is now usually inserted in all processes addressed to sheriffs. Wharton, Lex., 9th ed.; 2 Will. IV. c. 39; 3 Chitty, Stat. 494; 3 Chittv, Pr. 190, 310.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In