Definition
A Latin adverb used in legal pleading and drafting to indicate that a word, phrase, or allegation is stated or should be read in the plural form. Where a document uses a term in the singular but the context or construction requires a plural reading, "pluraliter" signals that the term operates as though it were pluralized. Conversely, it appears in argument and annotation to note that a preceding word was used in the plural in the original source.
The term functions as a grammatical directive within legal texts rather than as a substantive legal concept. Its practical importance lies in pleading precision: in common law pleading, the number of a word — singular or plural — could affect the sufficiency of an allegation, and a mismatch between form and intent required correction or express signaling.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encountering "pluraliter" in historical pleading records, court reports, or treatise annotations should treat it as a grammatical marker, not a term of legal substance. It most commonly appears in the argument sections of early English reports (and their American successors), where counsel or the reporter flags that a statute, instrument, or prior pleading used a word in the plural — a distinction that could bear on how strictly the pleading rules of the day were applied.
The sole citation across all three source dictionaries is "10 East, 158, arg." — a reference to an argument reported in volume 10 of East's Reports, page 158. This consistency suggests the term's legal use was narrow and its documentary record thin. Researchers should not expect to find "pluraliter" as a heading in modern indices or digests; it surfaces instead in marginal annotations, footnotes, and the argumentative passages of older reports where pleading grammar was contested.
Because common law pleading attached real consequence to number and gender of words — a declaration alleging one thing in the singular when the proof showed multiple instances could be challenged — notes like "pluraliter" carried procedural weight that modern notice-pleading jurisdictions have entirely discarded. When reading early American pleading manuals or English common law treatises, treat any instance of "pluraliter" as a flag that the draftsman or reporter was making a grammatical precision point with procedural stakes.
Historical Dictionary Support
All three source dictionaries — Black's (1st ed.), Black's (2nd ed.), and Burrill's — are in complete agreement, offering identical or near-identical definitions: "In the plural." Each cites the same source, 10 East, 158, arg., suggesting that the entry in later dictionaries was carried forward directly from Burrill or from a shared common source rather than independently verified. This uniformity is characteristic of Latin pleading terms whose definitions were settled early and never contested.
No source elaborates beyond the bare gloss. None provides historical context, examples of pleading usage, or discussion of when the term was practically deployed. This reflects the term's status as a grammatical particle — sufficiently clear to legal readers of the period that extended definition was thought unnecessary.
Modern legal dictionaries have largely dropped "pluraliter" from their pages, which is itself informative: the term belongs to the vocabulary of common law technical pleading, a practice that faded in English courts through the nineteenth century and was abolished or substantially reformed in American jurisdictions through code pleading (beginning with the New York Field Code of 1848) and later the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938).
Jurisdictional Note
"Pluraliter" has no living jurisdictional significance in modern American or English practice. Its relevance is confined to pre-code common law pleading contexts. Researchers working with pre-1850 American court records or pre-Judicature Acts English materials are the likeliest to encounter it.