QUADRUPLICATIO - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

QUADRUPLICATIOAuthored

The Law Mind • 960 words

Definition

In civil law pleading, the quadruplicatio is the fourth pleading in the formal exchange of written allegations between the parties — specifically, the third pleading on the part of the defendant. It follows the triplicatio (the defendant's second plea) and responds to the plaintiff's triplicatio. The sequence runs: the plaintiff's initial claim, the defendant's responsio, the plaintiff's replicatio, the defendant's duplicatio, the plaintiff's triplicatio, and finally the defendant's quadruplicatio.

The term is drawn from Roman civil procedure and carried into Scots law as the quadruply. It corresponds functionally to the rebutter in common law pleading — the defendant's answer to the plaintiff's surrejoinder.

---

Common Confusion

Quadruplicatio is regularly conflated with the surrounding pleadings in the civil law sequence, particularly the triplicatio (the pleading immediately preceding it) and the duplicatio (the defendant's first responsive pleading). The confusion is understandable: all three are defendant-side pleadings in the same formal exchange, and the numbering logic is not intuitive. The duplicatio is the defendant's first plea after the replicatio; the triplicatio is the defendant's second; the quadruplicatio is the defendant's third. One further source of confusion: Bracton adopts the term in English usage but displaces it within the series, making the quadruplicatio the third pleading overall rather than the fourth — a divergence Burrill flags directly and that can mislead researchers reading English medieval sources against civilian or Scots sources.

At common law, the functional equivalent proceeds under different names: plea, replication, rejoinder, surrejoinder, rebutter, surrebutter. Quadruplicatio maps to the rebutter, not the surrebutter, though Rapalje & Lawrence describe it as a surrebutter — a terminological inconsistency across the source dictionaries worth noting.

---

Why It Matters in Research

Researchers encountering quadruplicatio in primary sources should expect it primarily in three contexts: Roman law texts (especially Justinian's Institutes), Scots law proceedings, and English ecclesiastical or civil law records. Outside those streams, the term is rare in Anglo-American legal literature.

The most significant research trap is the Bracton displacement. Burrill notes that Bracton numbers the quadruplicatio as the third pleading overall rather than the defendant's third plea, which puts it at a different position in the sequence than Justinian's Institutes place it. A researcher tracking pleading sequences through medieval English sources may find the term appearing in what appears to be the wrong position — this reflects Bracton's own usage, not a transcription error.

The Rapalje & Lawrence identification of quadruplicatio as a surrebutter (rather than a rebutter) diverges from both Black's editions and Burrill. Black's and Burrill consistently align it with the rebutter. This discrepancy matters when cross-referencing into common law pleading doctrine: the rebutter is the defendant's answer to the surrejoinder, while the surrebutter is the plaintiff's answer to the rebutter. Rapalje & Lawrence appear to use surrebutter loosely to mean a late-stage defensive plea rather than in its strict technical sense. Researchers should not rely on Rapalje & Lawrence alone for the precise placement of this term in the pleading series.

In Scots law, the term survives as quadruply and appears in historical state trial records. Burrill cites 3 How. St. Trials, 78 as a Scots law usage, which provides a concrete reference point for researchers working in that corpus.

Because the quadruplicatio presupposes a full and formal pleading exchange, its appearance in a record signals that the litigation was procedurally advanced and that multiple prior pleadings must exist in the file. Researchers should expect to find a replicatio, duplicatio, and triplicatio preceding it.

---

Historical Dictionary Support

All four source dictionaries agree on the core identification: quadruplicatio is a defendant-side civil law pleading corresponding to the rebutter at common law, with its authority grounded in Justinian's Institutes 4.14.3 and Blackstone's Commentaries 3.310. This consensus is reliable.

The points of divergence are narrow but consequential. First, the Rapalje & Lawrence characterization as surrebutter rather than rebutter, discussed above under Common Confusion, is an outlier not supported by the other three sources. Second, Burrill uniquely preserves the Bracton exception — that Bracton repositions the quadruplicatio within the series — which none of the other dictionaries address. This makes Burrill the most complete source for researchers working in English medieval or common law contexts. Third, Burrill alone notes the Scots term quadruply and provides a citation to state trial records; the other dictionaries are silent on Scots usage.

None of the source dictionaries trace the practical disappearance of this pleading form from active use, nor do they situate quadruplicatio within the broader history of pleading reform. Researchers should be aware that formal multiple-exchange pleading of this kind was largely displaced in English practice well before the procedural reforms of the nineteenth century, and that in American practice the term is entirely historical.

---

Jurisdictional Note

Quadruplicatio is a civilian and Scots law term. It has no operative place in modern American or English procedural law. In Scots law, the quadruply persisted in formal pleading usage through at least the early modern period. In civil law jurisdictions, the term is a historical artifact of Roman procedure preserved through Justinian's Institutes.

---

QUADRUPLICATIOmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

Lat. In the civil law. A pleading on the part of a de- fendant, corresponding to the rebutter at common law. The third pleading on the part of the defendant. Inst. 4, 14, 3; 3 Bl. Comm. 310. Quæ ab hostibus capiuntur, statim ca- which are taken from enemies immediately pientium fiunt. 2 Burrows, 693. Things become the property of the captors. Quæ ab initio inutilis fuit institutio, ex post facto convalescere non potest. An institution which was at the beginning of no use or force cannot acquire force from after matter. Dig. 50, 17, 210. Quæ ab initio non valent, ex post facto convalescere non possunt. Things QUÆ ACCESSIONUM, ETC. invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by subsequent act. Tray. Lat. Max. 482. Quæ accessionum locum obtinent, ex- tinguuntur cum principales res peremp. tæ fuerint. Things which hold the place of accessories are extinguished when the prin- cipal things are destroyed. 2 Poth. Obl. 202; Broom, Max. 496. Quæ ad unum finem loquuta sunt, non debent ad alium detorqueri. 4 Coke, 14. Those words which are spoken to one end ought not to be perverted to another. Quæ cohærent personæ a persona se- parari nequeunt. Things which cohere to, or are closely connected with, the person, cannot be separated from the person. Jenk. Cent. p. 28, case 53. Quæ communi lege derogant stricte Interpretantur. [Statutes] which derogate from the common law are strictly interpreted. Jenk. Cent. p. 221, case 72. Quæ contra rationem juris introducta sunt, non debent trahi in consequen- tiam. 12 Coke, 75. Things introduced con- trary to the reason of law ought not to be drawn into a precedent. Quæ dubitationis causa tollendæ in- seruntur communem legem non lædunt. Co. Litt. 205. Things which are inserted for the purpose of removing doubt hurt not the common law. in Quæ dubitationis tollendæ causa con- tractibus inseruntur, jus commune non lædunt. Particular clauses inserted agreements to avoid doubts and ambiguity do not prejudice the general law. Dig. 50, 17, 81.

QUADRUPLICATIOmain

Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) • 1910

Lat. In the civil law. <A pleading on the part of a defendant, corresponding to the rebutter at common law. The third pleading on the part of the defendant. Inst. 4, 14,3; 8 BL Comm. $810. . Qua ab hostibus capiuntur, statim capientium fiunt. 2 Burrows, 693. Things which are taken from enemies immediately become the property of the captors. Qua ab initio inutilis fuit institutio, ex post facto convalescere non potest. An institution which was at the beginning of no use or force cannot acquire force from after matter. Dig. 50, 17, 210. Que ab initio non valent, ex post facto convalescere non possunt. Things invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by subsequent act. Tray. Lat. Max. 482. Que accessionum locum obtinent, extinguuntur cum principales res perempte fuerint. Things which hold the place of accessories are extinguished when the principal things are destroyed. 2 Poth. Obl. 202; Broom, Max. 496.

QUADRUPLICATIOmain

Rapalje & Lawrence • 1883

- In the civil law, a surrebutter. Colquh. Rom. Civ. L. 2 2267. Quæ ab hostibus capiuntur, statim capientium flunt (2 Burr. 693): Things which are taken from enemies immediately become the property of the captors. Quæ ab initio inutilis fuit institutio ex post facto convalescere non potest (D. 50, 17, 210): That which was a useless institution at the commencement cannot grow strong by an after-fact. Quæ accessionum locum obtinent extinguuntur cum principales res peremptæ fuerint (2 Poth. Oblig. 202): Those things which are incidents are extinguished when the principals (to which they are incident) are extinguished. Quæ ad unum finem loquuta sunt, non debent ad alium detorqueri (4 Co. 14): Those words which are spoken to one end, ought not to be perverted to another. Quæ cohærent persone a persona separari nequeunt (Jenk. Cent. 28): Things which belong to the person ought not to be separated from the person. Quæ communi legi derogant stricte interpretantur (Jenk. Cent. 221): Those things which derogate from the common law are to be strictly interpreted. Quæ contro rationem juris introducta sunt, non debent trahi in consequentiam (12 Co.75): Things introduced contrary to the reason of law ought not to be drawn into a precedent. : Quæ dubitationis causa tollendæ inseruntur communem legem non lædunt (Co. Litt. 205): Things which are inserted for the purpose of removing doubt, hurt not the common law. QUÆ EST EADEM. - Which is the In trespass and other actions, when the same. Quæ in testamento ita sunt scripta, ut intelligi non possint, perinde sunt ac si scripta non essent (D. 50, 17, 73, 3): Those things which in a testament are so written as not to be intelligible, are regarded as if they had not been written. Quæ incontinenti vel certo fiunt, inesse videntur (Lofft 591): Things which are done directly and certainly, appear to be inherent. Quæ inter alios acta sunt nemini nocere debent, sed prodesse possunt (6 Co.1): Transactions between strangers ought to hurt no man, but may benefit. Quæ legi communi derogant non sunt trahenda in exemplum: Things derogatory to the common law are not to be drawn into a precedent. Quæ legi communi derogant stricte interpretantur (Jenk. Cent. 29): Those things which are derogatory to the common law are to be strictly interpreted. Quæ mala sunt inchoata in principio vix bono peraguntur exitu (4 Co. 2): Things bad in principle at the commencement seldom achieve a good end. Quæ non fieri debent, facta valent: Things which ought not to be done, when done, may be valid. Quæ non valeant singula, juncta juvant (3 Buls. 132): Things which do not avail when separate, when joined avail. QUE NON VALEANT SINGULA, JUNCTA JUVANT, (applied). Broom Max. 588. QUÆ PLURA.-A writ which lay where an inquisition had been taken by an escheator of lands, &c., of which a man died seised, and all the land was supposed not to be found by the office or inquisition; it was to inquire of "what more" lands or tenements the party died seised. -Reg. Orig. 293. Rendered useless by 12 Car.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In