Definition
A historical common law writ available to a joint tenant or tenant in common who was distrained — that is, subjected to the seizure of goods or property — for a greater share of rent than corresponded to his proportionate interest in the land. The writ functioned as a remedy against overreach: where multiple parties held land jointly, a landlord or creditor might distrain one cotenant for the full rent owed on the property rather than only that tenant's ratable share. Onerando pro rata portionis provided a formal mechanism to limit that burden to the proportionate portion actually attributable to the party being distrained.
The name is Latin, meaning roughly "charging according to the proportionate share," and captures the writ's essential purpose: ensuring that liability for rent or service attached to each tenant in proportion to his interest, not in excess of it.
---
Common Confusion
Do not confuse this writ with contribution actions between cotenants, though the underlying equitable concern — preventing one party from bearing a disproportionate share of a common burden — is related. Onerando pro rata portionis was a defensive writ directed outward, against the party doing the distraining, not an action between cotenants to recover from one another after a disproportionate payment had already been made. The distinction matters when reading historical pleading records: the writ appears in proceedings against a lord or creditor, not in internal disputes between joint holders.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is an archaic writ of limited direct modern application, but it surfaces in several research contexts worth knowing.
First, it appears in early English register-of-writs literature. Black's cites Reg. Orig. 182 — a reference to the Registrum Omnium Brevium, the standard English register of original writs. Researchers tracing the historical forms of action will encounter it there. When working with pre-nineteenth-century English property or tenancy disputes, the writ may appear in pleading records without explanation; knowing its function prevents misreading the nature of the underlying dispute.
Second, the writ reflects a broader common law principle — that joint or proportionate holders of an interest should bear burdens only in proportion to that interest — which survived the abolition of the forms of action in different guises. Modern doctrines of contribution among cotenants and apportionment of tax liability among co-owners are doctrinal descendants. Historical sources treating apportionment of rent or distraint in the context of co-ownership may reference this writ as the antecedent remedy.
Third, researchers using historical property records in jurisdictions that received the English common law should be aware that the writ was never widely reproduced in American practice. It belongs to a class of hyper-specific medieval and early modern writs — alongside similar apportionment-related writs — that appear in English legal history but were largely absorbed into equity practice or statutory remedies before American property law fully developed. Its absence from American sources is not a gap in those sources; it is a reflection of the writ's obsolescence before transplantation.
Fourth, the procedural posture matters: distraint itself (the extrajudicial seizure of goods to compel performance) was a remedy available in early English landlord-tenant and feudal service contexts that has been substantially abolished or heavily restricted in modern Anglo-American law. Any research into distraint generally should account for this writ as one of several procedural checks that the common law placed on overuse of that remedy.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) provides a concise and accurate definition, citing the Registrum Omnium Brevium at page 182. The entry is brief, as would be expected for a writ of this specificity and obsolescence. Black's correctly identifies both the class of parties who could use the writ (joint tenants or tenants in common) and the triggering circumstance (distraint for more than one's proportionate share). No further elaboration is offered, which is appropriate — the writ's operation was mechanical once its conditions were met.
Researchers should note that the major historical dictionaries (Tomlin's, Bouvier's, Jacob's) each tend to carry similarly terse entries for writs of this type, essentially repeating the register citation without elaboration. The writ was not the subject of significant doctrinal development; it was a procedural instrument whose utility was straightforward. Historical sources will not yield richer analysis than Black's provides here. For deeper context, the Registrum Omnium Brevium itself, and secondary scholarship on the English forms of action — particularly Maitland's work on the subject — provide the necessary background.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This writ was an instrument of English common law and has no surviving procedural counterpart in modern American or English law. Jurisdictions that formally abolished the forms of action (England by the Common Law Procedure Acts; most American states through code pleading reforms) subsumed whatever function this writ served into general equitable apportionment principles and statutory co-tenancy law.
---