Definition
*Pro eo quod cum* (Latin: "for that whereas" or "for this, that whereas") is a formulaic phrase used in pleading. It appeared in the Latin declarations of early English common law practice as a connective clause linking the general averment of a claim to the specific factual allegations that followed. In practical terms, it served as the pleader's formal pivot — announcing that what came next was the factual basis "for" the cause of action previously stated.
The phrase is a relic of the period when English legal proceedings were conducted in Latin and formulaic precision was not merely stylistic but legally operative. A declaration that omitted or misused such formal words could be challenged on demurrer.
---
Common Confusion
Researchers occasionally conflate *pro eo quod cum* with *quia* (simply "because") or with *quod* used as a substantive conjunction in other formal Latin legal contexts. The distinction matters structurally: *pro eo quod cum* introduces the factual narrative of a declaration in a specific pleading posture, while *quia* and standalone *quod* constructions serve different grammatical and procedural functions depending on document type. When translating Latin pleadings, treating all these phrases as interchangeable obscures the pleading's internal logic.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers will encounter *pro eo quod cum* almost exclusively in transcribed or reproduced Latin-form declarations from English common law practice prior to the abolition of Law Latin in 1733 (under 4 Geo. II, c. 26). After that statute required proceedings to be in English, the phrase disappeared from live pleading, though it continued to appear in precedent books and form collections well into the nineteenth century as a guide to translating or interpreting older records.
**Traps in historical sources:** The phrase is easily skimmed past as mere transitional boilerplate, but its presence signals the structural architecture of a Latin declaration. In archival research, identifying where *pro eo quod cum* falls within a pleading document helps orient the reader: everything before it tends to be the formal statement of parties and venue; everything after it tends to contain the substantive factual allegations. Misreading the phrase as substantive rather than structural can distort interpretation of the underlying claim.
**Corpus connections:** Researchers working with Year Books, plea rolls, or early form books — including Rastell's *Entries*, Lilly's *Entries*, or the *Institute of Clerks* cited by Burrill — will find this phrase embedded in printed precedent forms. It also appears in treatises on common law pleading that reproduce Latin originals alongside English translations. Cross-referencing with terms like *quare* (used similarly in trespass writs) and *quia* (the Latin "because" used in other formal pleading contexts) can help decode structural patterns across document types.
**Historical evolution:** Once English replaced Latin in pleadings, analogous connective functions were performed by plain-English phrases such as "for that whereas" — which is the direct translation of *pro eo quod cum* and remained a recognized term of art in English declarations and declarations in assumpsit well into the nineteenth century. Researchers should treat "for that whereas" in English-form declarations as the functional successor to this Latin phrase.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the only source entry in the Law Mind corpus for this term, defining it as "For that whereas, (for this, that whereas.)" and citing *1 Inst. Cler. 207* — a reference to the *Institutio Clericalis*, a standard English form book for clerks of court. Burrill's treatment is accurate but brief, reflecting the phrase's status by the mid-nineteenth century as a historical artifact rather than a living term.
No entry appears in Bouvier, Black, or other major historical dictionaries in the Law Mind corpus, which is itself informative: by the time those dictionaries were compiled, the phrase had receded far enough into archival obscurity that lexicographers did not think it worth cataloguing. Researchers who find the phrase in primary sources and turn to those dictionaries for help will need to seek it in Burrill or in specialized Latin legal glossaries such as Spelman's *Glossarium Archaiologicum*.
---