Definition
An obsolete writ in English feudal law by which the Crown seized lands held as dower by the widow of a tenant-in-chief, where that widow had remarried without the royal license. The writ operated as an enforcement mechanism for the Crown's prerogative right to control the remarriage of widows who held land derived from tenure in capite — that is, tenure held directly of the king. Upon unauthorized remarriage, the Crown could seize the dower lands until the matter was resolved or a fine paid.
The writ is now entirely abolished and carries no operative legal force. Its significance is purely historical and doctrinal.
Common Confusion
Pour seisir terres should not be confused with the general writ of entry or other writs of seisin. It was a specialized prerogative writ, not an ordinary possessory remedy. It did not permanently extinguish the widow's dower rights — it was a seizure pending resolution of the Crown's claim — distinguishing it from a forfeiture in the strict sense.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers will encounter this term almost exclusively in one of three contexts: studies of medieval and early modern English feudal tenure, analysis of the prerogative rights of the Crown under the statute De Prærogativa Regis, or surveys of abolished writs following the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 (12 Car. II. c. 24).
The key navigational point is chronological scope. This writ was grounded in a fourteenth-century statute and abolished by mid-seventeenth-century legislation. Any source referencing pour seisir terres as operative law must predate 1660. Sources after that date treating it as live authority should be read as historical commentary only.
The writ sits at the intersection of three overlapping areas of the Law Mind corpus: the law of dower, the doctrine of tenure in capite, and the Crown's prerogative rights over the persons and property of its feudal dependents. Researchers working on any of these topics may encounter the writ as a cross-reference without it being the central subject. The connection to De Prærogativa Regis is particularly important — that statute organized and codified a range of royal prerogatives, and pour seisir terres was just one of several enforcement mechanisms it authorized. Understanding the writ in isolation, without reading it against the broader prerogative framework, risks misreading its scope.
There is also a jurisdictional trap worth flagging. English feudal tenure law does not map cleanly onto Scottish, Irish, or colonial American property history. Researchers working in those legal traditions should not assume this writ or its statutory basis applied without independent verification.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary provides the essential doctrinal framing: the writ applied when the widow of a Crown tenant holding in capite remarried without royal permission, triggering seizure of her dower lands. Black's correctly identifies the statutory basis as De Prærogativa Regis (17 Edw. II, St. 1, c. 4) and the abolishing statute as 12 Car. II. c. 24.
The entry is concise and accurate as far as it goes, but it leaves several contextual questions unanswered. It does not explain the rationale for the Crown's interest — rooted in the feudal logic that the king had a proprietary stake in the marriages of those who held land directly of him, because remarriage affected the loyalty and military capacity associated with the tenure. It also does not distinguish between seizure as a coercive remedy (to compel compliance or payment) and permanent forfeiture, a distinction that mattered practically in how these cases resolved. Researchers needing that level of detail will need to move beyond dictionary sources into treatises on feudal tenure and the prerogative, such as Bracton or Coke's commentary on the prerogative statutes.
No common or general-language dictionary covers this term, which is expected — it is pure legal French of a specialized medieval variety, with no counterpart in ordinary English usage at any period.
Jurisdictional Note
This writ was specific to English feudal law and derived its authority from English statute. It did not apply in jurisdictions where tenure in capite was not established. Its abolition in 1660 was a matter of English law; separate consideration would apply to any analogous doctrines in other legal systems.