Definition
Non usurpavit (Latin: "he has not usurped") is a pleading form used as a traverse in quo warranto proceedings or other actions brought against a person or entity alleged to have unlawfully assumed and exercised an office, franchise, or liberty without legal authority. By pleading non usurpavit, the defendant denies the core allegation of the complaint — that the defendant usurped the office or franchise in question — and puts the plaintiff to proof of the wrongful assumption of authority.
The plea operates as a general denial of usurpation. It does not concede that the defendant holds the office or exercises the franchise; rather, it contests the claim that doing so was unauthorized or wrongful. In this way, it is the mirror image of the quo warranto demand: where quo warranto asks "by what authority do you act," non usurpavit answers "I have not acted without authority."
---
Common Confusion
Non usurpavit should not be confused with a plea of justification or a plea of right. A justification admits the act but offers legal warrant for it; non usurpavit denies the wrongful character of the act altogether. It is also distinct from the underlying writ of quo warranto, which is the procedural vehicle — non usurpavit is the defendant's responsive pleading within that proceeding.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is essentially a relic of formal common-law pleading, now encountered almost exclusively in historical legal materials. Researchers will find it in reported cases involving quo warranto proceedings against corporate franchises, municipal officers, and public utilities through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Pennsylvania case Commonwealth v. Cross Cut Railroad Co., 53 Pa. 62, cited in both editions of Black's, illustrates the franchise context where non usurpavit appeared with some frequency — railroads and other quasi-public corporations were frequent targets of quo warranto, and their denial of usurpation by this plea shaped a body of state-level case law.
Several research traps are worth flagging. First, because non usurpavit is a traverse rather than an affirmative defense, researchers working with historical pleading records must understand its procedural posture correctly: it does not concede anything, and a case decided after this plea was entered will turn on what the plaintiff was able to prove, not on what the defendant admitted. Second, the Latin form may be inconsistently rendered or abbreviated in older court records and reporters — researchers should watch for variant spellings and partial transcriptions. Third, modern quo warranto practice, where it survives, has largely abandoned the formal Latin plea names; a modern equivalent will appear as a general denial or a specific denial of usurpation in plain-English pleading, and the term non usurpavit will rarely appear in post-twentieth-century materials. Finally, researchers should not expect significant treatment of this plea in secondary sources focused on modern administrative or corporate law — it belongs to the world of common-law pleading forms and will be better served by treatises on that subject.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both the first and second editions of Black's Law Dictionary define non usurpavit consistently: "He has not usurped. A form of traverse, in an action or proceeding against one alleged to have usurped an office or franchise, denying the usurpation charged." The two editions agree entirely on substance, with the second edition adding the full citation to Commonwealth v. Cross Cut Railroad Co. where the first gives only the volume and page reference. Neither edition elaborates on the pleading mechanics beyond the core identification of the plea as a traverse, and neither addresses how the plea interacted with the broader structure of quo warranto procedure or what evidence was required to sustain it once issue was joined.
Historical legal dictionaries generally treat non usurpavit as a brief entry — a definitional tag rather than a substantive discussion. Researchers needing more than the bare definition should turn to common-law pleading treatises of the nineteenth century, where quo warranto pleading is treated in fuller procedural context.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Quo warranto practice, and therefore the context in which non usurpavit arose, varied substantially by state. Some states abolished or significantly modified the common-law writ by statute; others folded quo warranto into general civil procedure. The plea form itself was a product of common-law pleading regimes and lost relevance wherever code pleading was adopted. Pennsylvania materials are the primary documented source for this plea in American case law.
---