PONE

Definition

An original writ issued out of chancery in English practice, commanding that a cause be removed from an inferior court — such as a court-baron, county court, or proceedings before a sheriff — into one of the superior courts of common law at Westminster. The writ took its name from its opening Latin word: *pone* ("put"), as in the full mandate *Pone per vadium et salvos plegios* ("Put by gage and safe pledges"). In a secondary but related usage, the term also designated the initial word of the mandate of an attachment for non-appearance on the return of an original writ, serving in that context as a mechanism to enforce a party's appearance by requiring sureties or the seizure of goods.

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A writ in law used by superior courts to remove cases from inferior courts; also a writ to enforce appearance in court by attaching goods or requiring securities. Separately, a kind of cornbread. (Southern U.S.) Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "A kind of johnnycake." [Written also paune.] [Southern U.S.] The Webster's 1913 entry reflects only the culinary sense — an American regional cornbread — with no acknowledgment of the legal term whatsoever. Researchers encountering *pone* in historical American general dictionaries will find no legal guidance there. The legal and common meanings share nothing but spelling; context eliminates any real ambiguity, but the Webster's omission is a reminder that non-legal reference works are unreliable guides to technical writ vocabulary.

Recognized Forms

/SUBTYPES Two distinct functions are recorded in the sources: 1. PONE AS A REMOVAL WRIT — The primary and better-documented form. Used to remove a plaint from a court-baron, county court, or proceedings under a writ of justices into a superior court. Obtained from a cursitor in chancery; bore teste after entry of the plaint in the inferior court; returnable on a general day in term. 2. PONE AS AN ATTACHMENT MANDATE — The initial word of the mandate of an attachment writ commanding that a defendant be "put" by gage and safe pledges to appear. In this sense *pone* is not a standalone writ but the operative word of a distinct procedural command. Anderson's Dictionary of Law specifically flags this dual usage.

Why It Matters in Research

*Pone* is a historically superseded English writ of no current operative legal force. Its significance to researchers is almost entirely historical and contextual. **Displacement by certiorari.** Black's Law Dictionary (both editions) and Burrill confirm that by the time the major historical dictionaries were compiled, *pone* had fallen into disuse, with the writ of certiorari becoming the ordinary mechanism for removing causes from inferior courts. Researchers reading pre-modern English legal records must recognize *pone* as the predecessor removal mechanism — not an anomaly or error — and understand that the functional role it served was later absorbed by certiorari. **Replevin connection.** Rapalje & Lawrence provides a specific procedural detail omitted by the other dictionaries: *pone* was the correct removal writ when goods had been replevied by *replegiari facias* and the plaint sat in the county court. Researchers working in replevin materials or county court records may encounter *pone* in precisely this context, and conflating it with certiorari or other removal writs in those records would be an error. **Dual usage trap.** The two functions of *pone* — removal writ versus attachment mandate — are easily conflated, particularly in older procedural records that use the term without explanation. Anderson's is the most explicit source in distinguishing them; Bouvier and Burrill treat only the removal sense. Researchers reading a writ or pleading referencing *pone* must determine from context which function is meant. **Latin text in primary sources.** Because *pone* writs were issued in Latin until the use of Latin in English legal proceedings was abolished, primary source records will show the full formula — *Pone per vadium et salvos plegios* or *Pone ad petitionem petentis coram justitiariis nostris* — rather than the English summary. Burrill provides the most complete transcription of the writ's operative language and is the best starting point for researchers encountering these formulas in original documents. **American irrelevance.** *Pone* as a legal writ has no meaningful American common law history. The writ was an English procedural mechanism tied to courts — courts-baron, county courts — that did not transplant to the American colonies in the same form. American researchers encountering the term in colonial-era materials should treat it as an English reference, not as evidence of an American procedural tradition.

Historical Dictionary Support

The six source dictionaries are broadly consistent on the core definition but vary usefully in emphasis and detail. Black's (both editions) and Bouvier treat *pone* primarily as a removal writ and note its obsolescence, with Bouvier alone citing Fitzherbert's *Natura Brevium* (69, 70a) as primary authority — the only treatise citation among the sources and the appropriate starting point for deeper historical research. Burrill provides the most linguistically complete entry, quoting the full Latin formula of the writ's mandate and citing Blackstone's *Commentaries* (3 Bl. Com. 34, 36, 195) for the county court removal function. Burrill's entry is the most useful for researchers who need to identify and parse the writ's language in primary documents. Rapalje & Lawrence adds the procedurally specific replevin context absent from the other dictionaries, making it the most useful source for researchers working in that subject area. Anderson's Dictionary of Law is distinctive in explicitly naming the dual usage — removal writ and attachment mandate — and providing the Latin gloss (*ponere*, to put) that explains the writ's naming convention. None of the historical dictionaries address American practice, which is appropriate given the writ's purely English character.

Jurisdictional Note

*Pone* is an English writ with no American equivalent. It is irrelevant to research in American federal or state practice. Researchers in English legal history or comparative common law history should situate it within the pre-reform English court structure, where it coexisted with certiorari before being displaced by it.

Related Terms