Definition
*Nus remisit curiam* (Latin: "the lord has remitted his court") is a historical writ of right used in English feudal land law. It issued when a lord holding seignory over lands or tenements had remitted — that is, surrendered or waived — his own court's jurisdiction over a dispute concerning those lands. In such circumstances, the plaintiff could not pursue the matter in the lord's manorial court and instead required this writ to bring the claim elsewhere, allowing the action to proceed in a superior court.
The writ belongs to the family of writs of right, which were the most solemn and formal instruments available in the old common law for the recovery of freehold land. A writ of right established title absolutely, as distinguished from possessory actions, which addressed only the fact of possession.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term will appear almost exclusively in pre-modern English legal sources — primarily treatises, registers of writs, and Year Books predating the abolition of the forms of action in England (Common Law Procedure Act 1852). Researchers encountering it in historical documents should understand it as a procedural mechanism, not a substantive doctrine.
The key research trap is treating *nus remisit curiam* as a free-standing cause of action. It is not. It is a variant or auxiliary writ within the broader architecture of writs of right, triggered by a specific circumstance: the lord's remission of his court. A researcher working through old pleading records or treatises on real property will need familiarity with the entire writ-of-right system to contextualize any reference to this term.
The writ is cited by Fitzherbert's *Natura Brevium* (Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 16), one of the foundational early guides to the forms of writs. That source is the primary pointer for anyone wishing to examine the writ's original procedural context. Black's second edition preserves the entry essentially as a pass-through from that source.
Because the writs of right were among the first forms of action to fall into disuse — they were slow, cumbersome, and largely supplanted by possessory assizes — this writ had become obsolete long before the formal abolition of the forms of action. Researchers should not expect to find it in American sources at any period; it is an artifact of English feudal tenure doctrine that never transplanted to the American colonies in operative form.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) provides the only entry among the Law Mind shelf sources. The definition is brief and derivative, drawing directly on Fitzherbert's *Natura Brevium* without elaboration. Black's adds no independent analysis and does not situate the writ within the broader taxonomy of writs of right or explain the procedural mechanism by which remission of a lord's court would trigger the writ's availability.
What the historical dictionary sources collectively miss: any discussion of how frequently the writ was actually used, how the lord's remission was established on the record, or how the writ related to the Grand Assize and other components of the writ-of-right procedure. Researchers needing that context should look to Pollock and Maitland's *History of English Law* or Maitland's *Forms of Action at Common Law* for background on the writ-of-right system generally, bearing in mind that *nus remisit curiam* specifically is a narrow procedural branch of that system.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This writ is exclusively English in origin and has no American counterpart. Feudal tenure doctrine, from which the writ derives its logic, was substantially rejected in the American colonies and newly formed states. No American jurisdiction ever recognized or applied this writ in practice.
---