Definition
*Prohibitionem* is a Latin term meaning "the prohibition" or "against the prohibition." In historical English law, it appears most commonly in the context of the plea *non fecit vastum contra prohibitionem* — "he did not commit waste against the prohibition" — a formal pleading entered in response to an action founded on a writ of estrepement. The plea denied that the defendant had committed waste in violation of a judicial prohibition or court-issued restraint. The term itself is not a freestanding legal doctrine but rather a component of formulaic Latin pleading language that surfaces in actions concerning waste and the writ of estrepement.
---
Common Language
*Prohibitionem* has no meaningful common English usage. It is the accusative form of the Latin noun *prohibitio* (prohibition, restraint) and appears only in the context of historical legal pleadings. Researchers encountering the word in modern sources are almost certainly looking at a Latin writ formula or a reproduction of historical pleading text, not a term of contemporary legal significance.
---
Common Confusion
Researchers should not conflate *prohibitionem* with the English writ of *prohibition*, which is a distinct instrument. A writ of prohibition was a common law writ issued by a superior court to restrain an inferior court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction. *Prohibitionem* as it appears in Black's and in Blackstone refers specifically to the prohibition element within waste-related pleading — the court's prior order restraining the defendant from committing waste — not to the writ of prohibition as a jurisdictional control device. The words share a root and a surface similarity, but they operate in entirely different procedural contexts.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers will encounter *prohibitionem* almost exclusively in one setting: reproductions or analyses of the plea *non fecit vastum contra prohibitionem*, cited directly to Blackstone's *Commentaries* (Book 3, chapters 226–227). The term does not generate independent doctrinal literature and is not a subject heading in modern legal indexes.
Several research traps are worth flagging:
**Indexing gaps.** Because *prohibitionem* is a Latin case-form rather than a lemma (dictionary headword form), it may not appear under its own heading in older indexes. Researchers searching historical digests should search under *waste*, *estrepement*, and *writ of prohibition* rather than the Latin term itself.
**Conflation risk in full-text search.** Digital full-text searches of historical legal materials will surface *prohibitionem* in multiple unrelated contexts — including writ of prohibition practice, ecclesiastical court proceedings, and canonical Latin legal maxims — because the word is simply the accusative form of a common Latin noun. Researchers must read the surrounding pleading formula carefully to confirm context.
**Black's as a gateway, not a destination.** The Black's entry reproduces Blackstone's reference without elaboration. Researchers who need substantive treatment of the underlying doctrine (waste, estrepement, and the restraining function of the court's prohibition) will need to proceed to Blackstone directly and to secondary commentary on common law real property pleading.
**Historical corpus connections.** In the Law Mind corpus, *prohibitionem* links most naturally to entries on estrepement, waste (voluntary and permissive), and the family of common law writs restraining action pending litigation. Understanding the term requires understanding that estrepement was a writ issued to prevent a defendant from stripping or damaging land while litigation over that land was pending — and that the prohibition embedded in the plea formula was that court-issued restraint, not a freestanding writ.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary presents *prohibitionem* only in passing, embedded within its entry on *non fecit vastum contra prohibitionem*, and does no more than supply the translation and cite to Blackstone. There is no analytical elaboration.
Blackstone's *Commentaries*, the primary source behind Black's citation, provides the authoritative context: the writ of estrepement lay to prevent waste during pending litigation, and the standard defense plea denied that any waste had been committed in violation of the court's prohibition. The plea formula was highly technical and formulaic, as was characteristic of common law pleading before the procedural reforms of the nineteenth century.
Historical dictionaries generally treat this term, when they treat it at all, as a sub-entry under *waste* or *estrepement* rather than as a headword in its own right. This reflects the term's status as pleading vocabulary rather than substantive doctrine. No historical dictionary in the standard legal reference shelf devotes independent analytical treatment to *prohibitionem* as a concept.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This term belongs to English common law pleading and has no operative significance in modern American or Commonwealth jurisdictions. The procedural forms in which it appeared were abolished by nineteenth-century pleading reforms in England and by equivalent reforms in American states. It is purely of historical and interpretive interest.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Law Mind Encyclopedia: Writs (Common Law); Estrepement; Waste (Property Law)
---