Definition
In common law procedure, a "pot" is an archaic informal reference to the postea — the formal written return endorsed on the back of the nisi prius record by which the judge who presided at trial reported what took place to the court in banc. The pot recorded the verdict, the course of the trial, and any other matters necessary to enable the superior court to enter final judgment.
The term is not an independent procedural instrument but rather a colloquial shortening of postea, the Latin term for the formal endorsement. Its appearance in older English and American legal sources reflects the oral and informal vocabulary of the common law bar, where terms of art were routinely abbreviated or nicknamed in practice even when formal pleading demanded the full Latin.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A vessel for cooking or holding liquids; also a verb meaning to place something in a pot, to preserve food, or to shoot haphazardly.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): A metallic or earthen vessel for boiling, holding liquids, or growing plants; also an earthen or pewter drinking cup; a measure of liquid quantity.
The gap is complete. The legal use of "pot" has no relationship to vessels, cooking, or drinking. It is a procedural term of art derived entirely from the Latin postea, retained in informal legal speech. A researcher encountering "pot" in a trial record or law dictionary context should not read it through any common-language lens.
Common Confusion
POT and POSTEA are the same thing — pot is simply the informal contraction. Researchers should not treat them as separate instruments. The confusion runs in both directions: a reader familiar with the formal term postea may not recognize "pot" in marginal notations or informal correspondence, while a reader encountering "pot" in a case summary may not connect it to the formal procedural return. Burrill uses the term as a direct synonym, not as a distinct entry, which reflects standard usage in the period.
Why It Matters in Research
The practical significance here is almost entirely navigational. Researchers working in pre-nineteenth-century English common law records, or in American materials from the colonial and early federal periods that track English procedure closely, may encounter "pot" in marginal endorsements, practitioners' notes, or informal legal correspondence. Without knowing the connection to postea, the reference is opaque.
Several traps appear in historical sources. First, indexing: older digests and abridgments may index this material under "postea" without cross-referencing "pot," so a term search alone may return nothing. Second, manuscript records: court clerks often used the abbreviated form in handwritten endorsements on the back of nisi prius records, the very location where the postea was physically inscribed. Third, the procedural context matters — the pot/postea is the link between the trial and the entry of judgment in bank, meaning that any research into the judgment itself must account for what the postea contained. A missing or defective postea could defeat the ability to enter judgment.
For researchers in the Law Mind corpus, entries and materials touching nisi prius practice, the system of courts of record in English common law, and the mechanics of judgment entry are the natural cluster. The postea also appears in discussions of bills of exceptions and writs of error, since the trial record — including the postea — was the foundation for appellate review of facts and procedure.
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary is the sole source in the Law Mind shelf for this term, and its treatment is brief but precise: pot is identified as "the return made by the judge who tried the cause, to the court in banc, of what took place at the trial," entered first on the back of the nisi prius record and serving as the ground for subsequent judgment. This is consistent with the fuller treatment of postea in standard English law dictionaries of the period, including Jacob's Law Dictionary and Tomlin's Law Dictionary, which describe the postea as a memorandum of the verdict endorsed on the record and carried back to the court of record for judgment.
Burrill does not explain the etymology or the relationship between "pot" and "postea" explicitly, treating the abbreviated form as self-evident to his contemporary audience. That transparency has eroded considerably, making the cross-reference essential for modern researchers. No significant divergence exists between sources on the substance — the procedural function of the instrument is consistently described — but coverage is thin across the shelf, reflecting how thoroughly this aspect of common law procedure was displaced by statutory reform in the nineteenth century.
Jurisdictional Note
This procedural mechanism was specific to English common law practice and its American derivatives. Nisi prius procedure and the associated postea were largely displaced in England by the Judicature Acts of 1873–1875 and in the United States by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) and analogous state reforms. The term has no operative significance in modern practice.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia — POSTEA; NISI PRIUS; JUDGMENT