Definition
Que est eadem (Latin: "which is the same") is a pleading formula used in common law practice to assert that a fact stated in a plea or answer refers to the identical act or event described elsewhere in the pleading — typically in the declaration. The phrase was invoked to resolve apparent discrepancies between the way a trespass or other act was described in two different parts of the same proceeding, signaling to the court that despite surface differences in description, only one underlying act was at issue.
In practice, the allegation functioned as a reconciling device. When a defendant's plea described a transaction or event in terms that did not precisely mirror the plaintiff's declaration, the phrase que est eadem allowed the pleader to assert identity of subject matter and forestall an objection that the plea was responsive to a different act than the one complained of.
---
Common Confusion
Que est eadem is sometimes loosely associated with idem (the same) and the broader doctrine of identity of issues in pleading, but it is a specific technical formula distinct from general allegations of sameness. It does not establish a legal conclusion — it is an averment, subject to traverse, that the acts are one and the same. Researchers should not conflate it with the doctrine of res judicata, which addresses identity of issues across separate proceedings; que est eadem operated within a single proceeding to align internal pleading references.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term surfaces almost exclusively in pre-nineteenth-century common law pleading materials and is largely absent from modern practice. Researchers encountering it in historical records — particularly in trespass actions, actions on the case, and other common law forms — should read it as a structural signal that the pleader is explicitly bridging two descriptions of the same act to prevent a pleading defect.
The primary trap for researchers is treating the formula as purely ceremonial. At common law, strict pleading rules meant that a variance between the declaration and the plea could be fatal. Que est eadem was the technical remedy for an apparent variance, and its presence in a pleading indicates that a variance problem existed and was being addressed. Its absence, where a variance might otherwise be noted, can itself be meaningful.
Because the phrase appears in the body of pleas rather than in headings or indices, it will not surface in title or keyword searches unless a researcher is scanning full pleading text. It is most likely to appear in printed form books, pleading manuals, and early law reports where pleadings were reproduced verbatim.
Researchers working in equity or early American practice should note that the formula tracks English common law pleading conventions. American courts that adopted common law pleading inherited the formula, but code pleading reforms — beginning with the New York Field Code of 1848 and spreading through the nineteenth century — eliminated the technical pleading structure that gave the phrase its function. Federal civil practice under the Rules of Civil Procedure has no equivalent mechanism.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary defines que est eadem as "which is the same" and identifies its function as alleging that a trespass or other fact mentioned in the plea is identical to that laid in the declaration, where circumstances create an apparent difference between the two. Black's cites Chitty on Pleading for the proposition, pointing researchers to a primary treatise source.
Chitty's Pleading (the work Black's references at *582) was the leading English authority on common law pleading forms through much of the nineteenth century and remains the most reliable secondary source for tracing how this formula was applied in practice. The formula does not appear to have generated significant independent doctrinal development — it was a fixed pleading convention rather than a contested legal concept — and historical dictionaries accordingly give it brief treatment. No significant divergence exists among the historical sources that address it; the definition is stable and consistent across authorities that touch on it.
What historical dictionaries do not address is the formula's effective disappearance from practice. Researchers relying solely on Black's or Bouvier for context may not appreciate that by the late nineteenth century, the phrase was already becoming a relic, and by the mid-twentieth century it had passed entirely out of active use.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Que est eadem was a feature of English common law pleading and was carried into American jurisdictions that adopted common law pleading forms. Its relevance is confined to jurisdictions and time periods operating under technical common law pleading rules. It has no application in modern code or notice pleading jurisdictions.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia — Pleading (historical forms and technical requirements); Common Law Forms of Action (trespass and related actions where the formula most commonly appears).
---