Definition
Quare ejecit infra terminum (Latin: "wherefore he ejected within the term") is an obsolete common law writ that provided a remedy to a lessee who had been wrongfully ejected from leased land before the expiration of the lease term. The writ was specifically designed for situations where the party responsible for the ejection was no longer in possession of the land — having transferred it to a feoffee or some other person claiming under them — making the more direct remedies unavailable against the original wrongdoer. By naming the current possessor as the defendant, the writ allowed the dispossessed lessee to recover possession or damages even when the ejector himself had moved the property out of his own hands.
---
Common Confusion
Quare ejecit infra terminum is easily conflated with the action of ejectment generally, and with the closely related writ of novel disseisin. The critical distinction is procedural and positional: ordinary ejectment actions and novel disseisin ran against a party in possession, while quare ejecit infra terminum was the specific vehicle for pursuing recovery when the original ejector had already conveyed away to a third party. Researchers should also take care not to conflate this writ with quare ejecit post terminum, which addressed wrongful ejection after the term had expired — a distinct grievance with a distinct procedural posture.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This writ is of purely historical significance. It was obsolete in English practice well before modern common law procedure replaced the old writ system, and no American jurisdiction ever meaningfully developed it as a live action. Its primary research value is as a window into how medieval and early modern common law addressed the problem of possessory remedies for leaseholders — a category of protected interest that courts worked hard to expand over several centuries.
Researchers working in the history of landlord-tenant law, property remedies, or the development of ejectment as a general action will encounter quare ejecit infra terminum in treatises and abridgments as one of the predecessor forms that eventually gave way to the generalized action of ejectment. Understanding it in context requires familiarity with the system of original writs and the Chancery's Register of Writs (Registrum Omnium Brevium), where the form was preserved.
A key research trap: because this writ appears in older abridgments and form books under multiple Latin variants and abbreviations, cross-referencing requires checking both Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium and Blackstone's Commentaries directly rather than relying on indexed summaries, which frequently collapse it with related writs. Black's 2nd Edition references Fitzherbert at 197 Ss — the "Ss" designation indicating a specific section of that treatise — and Blackstone at Book III, pages 199 and 206, both of which remain the authoritative historical descriptions in the common law tradition.
Corpus researchers should note that the writ's appearance in American colonial records is rare but not unknown, particularly in jurisdictions that formally adopted English common law forms through reception statutes. Any appearance in early American records should be treated with care: it may signal archaism in the drafter rather than live procedural use.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) provides a concise and accurate account, defining the writ as lying for a lessee ejected before term expiration where the ejector was no longer in possession but had conveyed to a feoffee or other party claiming under him. Black's correctly identifies its source authorities: Blackstone's Commentaries Book III, the Registrum Originale at folio 227, and Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium at 197 Ss.
Blackstone's treatment in Book III is the most accessible for modern researchers. He situates the writ within his broader account of the history of ejectment, explaining that the common law's original inability to protect a lessee's term — because a term for years was considered personalty, not a freehold — required the development of specialized writs like this one to patch gaps in possessory protection. The writ represents an intermediate stage in that doctrinal development, predating the full maturation of the action of ejectment.
What the historical sources collectively leave unaddressed is any meaningful account of the writ's actual frequency of use in practice or its success rate in early courts. The sources treat it as a doctrinal category more than a living procedural tool, which is appropriate given that by the time Blackstone was writing it was largely academic.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This writ has no modern jurisdictional relevance. It belongs to the pre-reform English common law writ system and was not adopted as a distinct form in American practice. Research into its use must remain anchored in English legal history prior to the nineteenth-century procedural reforms.
---