Definition
A precautionary clause inserted into a deed for the specific purpose of creating a valid tenant to the praecipe in a common recovery. The olause was a technical device of conveyancing practice, used to ensure that the procedural machinery of common recovery operated correctly by establishing a proper party against whom the writ of praecipe could be brought.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is essentially a relic of the common recovery system, a fictitious legal proceeding that was the dominant method of barring entails in English land law before the Fines and Recoveries Act 1833 effectively abolished the practice. Researchers encountering "olause" in historical deeds or conveyancing manuals should understand that its function was entirely procedural and formal — it had no independent operative effect on the land itself, but its omission could fatally undermine the common recovery and leave an entail unbarred.
The term will appear almost exclusively in pre-1833 English conveyancing materials. It has no meaningful presence in American legal practice, as common recoveries were never adopted in the colonies and states in the form used in English practice. Researchers working in post-1833 English materials or in American sources should not expect to encounter this term in operative documents.
The reference to Preston on Conveyancing (1 Prest. Conv. 110) points to Edward Preston's treatise, a significant early nineteenth-century authority on English conveyancing practice. That work is the natural next stop for any researcher seeking a fuller technical explanation of how the olause functioned within the broader mechanics of common recovery.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) provides the only dictionary entry identified for this term, and its definition is notably brief: "a precautionary stipulation inserted in a deed making a good tenant to the precipe in a common recovery," with a single citation to Preston on Conveyancing. The sparseness of the entry reflects the term's narrow technical scope — it was a term of art within a very specific conveyancing procedure rather than a concept with broader doctrinal reach.
No expansion or divergence across historical sources is available from the present corpus. The term does not appear to have attracted commentary beyond specialist conveyancing treatises, and it never acquired the kind of contested or evolving meaning that would generate competing definitions. Its disappearance from legal dictionaries after the abolition of common recoveries is unsurprising; once the procedure it served became obsolete, the vocabulary associated with it ceased to circulate.
Jurisdictional Note
This term is exclusively English in origin and application. It has no recognized equivalent or counterpart in American, Scottish, or other common law jurisdictions. Research utility is confined to English legal history prior to 1833.