PAROL DEMURRING - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

PAROL DEMURRINGAuthored

The Law Mind • 1034 words

Definition

Parol demurring was a procedural device in English real actions by which either party could request that the pleadings (the "parol") be suspended—that is, held in abeyance—until an infant party reached the age of twenty-one. The term derives from the Latin *parol* (speech, pleading) and the concept of demurring as a halt or pause. When a court granted the prayer, the action was effectively frozen: no further proceedings could be taken until the infant attained full age, at which point the litigation resumed.

The device applied primarily in real actions—those concerning the recovery of real property—brought by or against an infant, and also in certain actions of debt brought against an infant as heir to a deceased ancestor. Either party, not only the infant, could suggest the non-age and pray that the parol demur. The court's allowance of the prayer protected the infant from being bound by pleadings or judgments entered at a time when the law regarded the infant as legally incapable of full participation.

---

Common Language

The word *parol* in ordinary English refers simply to spoken or oral communication, as distinct from written. Webster's 1913 defines it as "Given or done by word of mouth; oral; also, given by a writing not under seal." Wiktionary similarly treats parol as meaning "by word of mouth; oral."

The legal meaning here is narrower and older: in medieval and early modern procedure, *parol* referred specifically to the pleadings themselves—the formal oral (and later written) exchanges between the parties that constituted the litigation record. Parol demurring has nothing to do with oral versus written communication; the word is used in its procedural-record sense, now almost entirely obsolete in general usage. A researcher encountering *parol* in a historical procedural context should not assume the ordinary meaning applies.

---

Common Confusion

Parol demurring is easily confused with three distinct concepts that share vocabulary:

**Parol evidence:** The parol evidence rule (governing the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to vary a written contract) uses *parol* in its ordinary sense of oral or extrinsic. Parol demurring uses *parol* in its archaic procedural sense of the pleadings. The two doctrines are unrelated.

**Demurrer:** A demurrer in its familiar sense is a pleading that challenges the legal sufficiency of the opposing party's allegations. Parol demurring is not a challenge to sufficiency; it is a request for suspension of the entire proceeding. The word *demur* here means to pause or delay, not to object on legal grounds.

**Parole (criminal law/immigration):** The phonetically similar term *parole*—conditional release from incarceration, or immigration parole—shares no legal lineage with parol demurring beyond a common etymological root.

---

Why It Matters in Research

Parol demurring is a term of almost entirely historical significance. It belongs to the procedural world of English common law real actions—a category of litigation that was largely abolished in England by the Real Property Limitation Act 1833 and the Common Law Procedure Acts of the nineteenth century, and that never took deep root in American practice to begin with. Researchers will encounter the term primarily in:

1. **Pre-nineteenth-century English pleading treatises and reports.** Sources such as Blackstone's *Commentaries*, Tidd's *Practice*, and early English Year Books discuss the device in the context of real actions and infancy. The Rapalje & Lawrence entry appears to be cut off mid-sentence, suggesting the full definition addresses the mechanics of resumption at full age—a detail worth seeking in primary sources if precision is needed.

2. **Historical American practice materials.** A small number of early American jurisdictions preserved real actions and associated devices; researchers working on colonial-era or early republic property litigation may encounter the term in pleading records.

3. **Infancy and guardianship doctrine histories.** The device is a window into how common law courts accommodated the legal disability of infancy before modern guardianship ad litem procedures existed. Researchers tracing the evolution of infant procedural protections should note the connection.

The key navigational trap is the vocabulary overlap with *parol evidence* and *demurrer* as those terms are used in modern practice. A search query combining "parol" and "demur" in historical databases will surface both the procedural device described here and unrelated parol evidence discussions; results require careful contextual sorting.

---

Historical Dictionary Support

Rapalje & Lawrence is the sole source available here, and the entry is incomplete as reproduced—the definition breaks off before describing the full mechanics of how the suspension operated and how proceedings resumed. What the entry confirms is the core structure: the device was available in real actions involving infants (whether plaintiff or defendant) and in debt actions against an infant heir; either party could invoke it; and its effect was to suspend the pleadings pending the infant's majority.

The phrase "that the parol might demur" is the technical formula of the prayer itself, and Rapalje & Lawrence helpfully glosses it as meaning "that the pleadings might be [suspended]"—a useful confirmation that *demur* here carries its older sense of pause, not its familiar pleading sense of legal objection.

Historical sources generally omit this term entirely or treat it cursorily, reflecting its obsolescence by the time most American legal dictionaries were compiled. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (various editions) and Black's Law Dictionary address related infancy procedural doctrines but do not prominently feature parol demurring as a standalone entry, consistent with its near-complete displacement by modern procedure.

---

Jurisdictional Note

Parol demurring was a creature of English common law procedure in real actions. American jurisdictions largely abandoned the technical forms of real actions in the nineteenth century, rendering the device obsolete before it could be firmly transplanted. Researchers should treat it as English procedural history unless specific evidence of adoption in a particular American jurisdiction is identified.

---

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

The Law Mind Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia: *Interpretation — Parol Evidence Rule (Complete vs. Partial Integration)* — relevant for understanding the distinct use of *parol* in contract law and for confirming the absence of overlap with the procedural device described here.

---

PAROL DEMURRINGmain

Rapalje & Lawrence • 1883

-In many real actions brought by or against an infant under the age of twenty-one years, and also in actions of debt brought against him, as heir to any deceased ancestor, either party might suggest the non-age of the infant, and pray that the proceedings might be deferred till his full age, or that the infant might have his age, and that "the parol might demur," i. e. that the pleadings might be stayed; and then they would not have proceeded till the infant's full age, unless it was apparent that he could not be prejudiced thereby. This parol demurring was abolished by the Stat. 11 Geo. IV. and 1 Will. IV. c. 47, as to proceedings under that statute, being chiefly decrees for the sale of real estate to pay debts. The parol demurring is not to be confounded with a parol demurrer, which was a demurrer put in for the first time at the trial or hearing of the action. - Brown. See DEMURRER, § 2. operate at all, or is essential in order to give to the instrument its legal effect. (3 Stark. Ev. 752.) The general rule with regard to the admission of parol evidence to explain the meaning of, or to add to, vary, or alter the express terms of a deed, is, that it shall not be admitted, except: (1) where, although the deed is clearly enough expressed, some ambiguity arises from extrinsic circumstances; (2) where the language of a charter or deed has become obscure from antiquity; (3) where the grant is uncertain, owing to a want of acquaintance with the grantor's estate; (4) where it is important to show a different consideration consistent with, and not repugnant to, that stated in the deed itself; (5) where it becomes necessary to show a different time of delivery from that at which the deed purports to have been made; (6) where it is sought to prove a customary right not expressed in the deed, but not inconsistent with any of its stipulations; or, lastly, where fraud or illegality in the formation of the deed is relied on to avoid it. If a clause in a deed be so ambiguously or defectively expressed that a court of justice cannot, even by reference to the context, collect the meaning of the parties, it would be void on account of uncertainty.-Wharton. PAROL EVIDENCE, (when admissible). Sax. (N. J.) 393; South. (N. J.) 452; 2 Whart. (Pa.) 75.