Definition
A praecipe (also spelled precipe) is a written order or request directed to a court clerk or, in historical practice, a writ commanding a defendant either to perform a specified act or to appear and show cause why the act has not been performed. The term encompasses two related but distinct uses:
1. HISTORICAL WRIT: In early common law procedure, a praecipe was an original writ issued out of chancery commanding the defendant to do some act — typically to surrender land or perform an obligation — or else appear before the court and explain the failure. The writ was drafted in the alternative: do the thing, or show why not.
2. MODERN COURT PRACTICE: In contemporary usage, a praecipe is a short written instruction submitted by a party to the clerk of court directing the clerk to take some ministerial action — such as entering a judgment, issuing a subpoena, scheduling a hearing, docketing a document, or noting a discontinuance. It is not itself a motion or pleading; it is a direction to the clerk.
---
Common Confusion
The two meanings — the historical writ and the modern clerk's instruction — share a name but are functionally different instruments. Researchers encountering "praecipe" in historical sources (pre-19th century) should assume the writ context. Encountering it in modern American practice, assume the clerical direction. The historical writ fell out of use with the abolition of the forms of action; the modern use of the term survived as a term of art in certain jurisdictions, particularly Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and other states with strong common law procedural traditions.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The spelling variation is a genuine research hazard. The term appears in historical sources as praecipe, precipe, præcipe, and even (as in the source entry above) with OCR or transcription errors (the source scan renders it "Prjeoipe"). Corpus searches that rely on a single spelling will miss material.
In the historical writ context, the praecipe was fundamental to real property litigation. The writ of praecipe quod reddat — "command that he restore" — was the standard mechanism for initiating an action to recover land, and its abolition by the Statute of Fines (1833) and later procedural reforms was a landmark in the simplification of common law pleading. Historical sources discussing land recovery, fine and recovery procedure, or the forms of real action will use this term extensively.
In American practice, researchers should be alert to heavy jurisdictional concentration. Pennsylvania in particular has maintained praecipe as a standard procedural form well into the modern era; Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure expressly reference praecipes for a range of clerk-directed actions. A researcher generalizing from Pennsylvania materials to other jurisdictions may overstate the term's modern prevalence.
The Black's 2nd Edition entry, while brief, anchors the term firmly in the historical writ context and cites Blackstone's Commentaries (Book 3, p. 274) — a reliable pointer to the classical treatment of the writ's operation and form.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) defines praecipe in the writ sense: an original writ "drawn up in the alternative, commanding the defendant to do the thing required, or show the reason why he had not done it," with the Blackstone citation confirming the entry's common law pedigree. This is the narrower, older meaning.
The historical dictionaries collectively treat praecipe primarily as a procedural writ of the English common law system. What they tend to underemphasize is the parallel survival of the term in American state practice as a purely clerical direction — a usage that developed independently of the writ form and is now the more common meaning in jurisdictions that retain the term at all. Researchers relying solely on historical dictionary sources will get an accurate picture of the writ but an incomplete picture of modern American procedural usage.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Modern use of "praecipe" as a court form is concentrated in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and a handful of other jurisdictions with historically strong common law procedural traditions. Many states and the federal courts have no equivalent form or use different terminology for the same clerk-directed functions. Researchers should not assume uniform availability.
---