Definition
Latin: "offered himself." A formal Latin phrase used in old English common law practice to record that one party appeared in court and presented himself for proceeding, while the opposing party failed to appear. The phrase functioned as a term of art in court records rather than as a substantive legal doctrine — it was the clerk's notation marking the appearance of one side and the default of the other. The entry of obtulit se on the record was a procedural predicate to further action against the absent party, such as an award of default or other consequence for non-appearance.
Common Confusion
Burrill's Law Dictionary cross-references the variant spelling optulit se, indicating that both forms appear in historical records. Researchers encountering either spelling in manuscript or printed court rolls should treat them as identical in meaning. The variation is orthographic, not substantive, and reflects inconsistent Latinization across clerks and periods rather than any distinction in legal effect.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is almost exclusively a creature of medieval and early modern English common law procedure and will surface almost entirely in plea rolls, year books, and treatises describing the old common law system — not in modern legal materials. Researchers working with early English court records, Reeves's History of English Law, or similar sources should recognize obtulit se as a stock formula indicating a one-sided appearance. It carries no independent doctrinal weight and should not be confused with a substantive legal standard.
The phrase matters most as a navigational signal: its presence in a record means the researcher is looking at a procedural posture — one party present, one absent — and the subsequent entries on the roll will show what consequence followed. Understanding this helps parse the structure of a historical plea roll entry without misreading the phrase as a finding on the merits.
Because the term belongs to a period before standardized reporting, researchers should be alert to variant spellings (optulit, obtulit) and to the fact that modern legal dictionaries preserve it primarily as a historical artifact. No contemporary jurisdiction uses this phrase as operative language.
Historical Dictionary Support
The four historical dictionaries in the Law Mind corpus are in close agreement. All four define obtulit se as the emphatic words of entry on the record where one party offered himself in court and the other did not appear. Black's (both editions) and Burrill each cite 1 Reeve, Eng. Law, 417 (Reeves's History of English Law) as the supporting authority — the only primary source referenced across these entries. Rapalje & Lawrence omit the citation but are otherwise consistent in substance.
Burrill's addition of the cross-reference to optulit is a useful piece of information the other dictionaries omit; researchers should carry that variant spelling into any search of historical materials. None of the sources elaborate beyond the basic definition, which accurately reflects the narrow and purely procedural nature of the phrase. There is nothing in the historical dictionary record to suggest the term ever carried broader meaning or was contested in its application.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
No Law Mind Encyclopedia entry directly addresses old common law appearance practice or plea roll procedure. The matched encyclopedia entries (negligence per se, physical takings per se rules, defamation per se) share only the Latin particle per se and are not relevant to this term.