QUESTUS EST NOBIS - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

QUESTUS EST NOBISAuthored

The Law Mind • 895 words

Definition

Latin: "Hath complained to us." A writ of nuisance in English common law, most closely associated with the procedural expansion enacted by the Statute of 15 Edward I. The writ lay against a person to whom a house or other thing causing a nuisance had descended by inheritance or had been conveyed by alienation. Before that statute, the nuisance action ran only against the person who originally created or levied the nuisance. The writ's expansion brought successors in title within reach of the action, so that a neighbor suffering from a continuing nuisance was no longer without remedy merely because the original wrongdoer had died or transferred the property.

The opening Latin words — questus est nobis, meaning "hath complained to us" — were the initial words of the writ as it appeared in the old Register of Writs, and served as the writ's identifying name in the same way that many common law writs took their names from their opening clause.

---

Common Language

No common English usage exists for this phrase. It is Latin legal formulary, drawn from the register of original writs, and carries no meaning in ordinary modern or historical usage outside that context. The COMMON LANGUAGE section is omitted accordingly.

---

Why It Matters in Research

Researchers will encounter questus est nobis almost exclusively in pre-modern common law sources, particularly in works treating the history of nuisance as a form of action and the development of writs practice. Several navigational points are worth noting.

First, the writ belongs to the period of English legal history when the forms of action controlled substantive rights, and understanding its scope requires situating it within that procedural framework. The statute of 15 Edward I (1278) is the pivot point: sources discussing nuisance actions before that date describe a narrower liability universe than those written after it. Researchers reading older treatises should attend to whether the source is describing pre- or post-statute practice.

Second, this writ is connected to a broader cluster of nuisance writs in the Register of Writs. Burrill's entry is particularly useful here, noting that questus est nobis served as the initial words of various old writs in the Register (Reg. Orig. 92, 93), not just this nuisance action. Researchers searching the Register or early plea rolls under this phrase may therefore encounter related but distinct writs and should not assume a single procedural instrument.

Third, the term has no practical relevance to modern nuisance law. The common law forms of action were abolished, and nuisance today is treated as a substantive tort or property doctrine rather than a writ-based remedy. A researcher tracing the history of nuisance liability for successors in title — a question that remains live in modern property and tort law — will find this writ a useful historical origin point, but should not import its technical contours directly into analysis of contemporary doctrine.

Fourth, the Cowell citation repeated across multiple source dictionaries (Bouvier, Rapalje & Lawrence, both editions of Black's) indicates that these entries share a common genealogy running through John Cowell's Interpreter (1607). Researchers should treat the dictionary entries as derivative of Cowell rather than as independent authorities.

---

Historical Dictionary Support

The five source dictionaries are in strong agreement on the core definition, and the degree of textual overlap confirms shared derivation from Cowell. Black's (both editions), Rapalje & Lawrence, and Bouvier all reproduce essentially the same sentence: the writ lay against successors in title under 15 Edward I, whereas previously the action ran only against the original creator of the nuisance. None of these sources add analytical depth beyond that structural point.

Burrill's is the outlier in a useful way. Rather than reproducing the Cowell-derived description of the nuisance writ, Burrill notes the phrase's function as the initial words of various old writs in the Register, citing the Register of Originals at pages 92 and 93. This is a more technically precise observation: questus est nobis was a formulaic opening that appeared across multiple writ forms, and the nuisance writ was one application among several. Burrill's entry thus offers a corrective to the narrower framing in the other sources, which treat the phrase as if it names only the nuisance writ specifically.

What the historical dictionaries do not address: none discuss the relationship between this writ and the broader question of successor liability for nuisance in equity or in later common law development. None engage with how the principle behind the writ — that a continuing nuisance travels with the land — eventually became embedded in property doctrine without the writ form. Researchers looking for that analytical bridge will need to go beyond the dictionary sources.

---

Jurisdictional Note

This writ has no modern jurisdictional application. It was a creature of English common law procedural history, and its relevance in any American jurisdiction is purely historical. The principle underlying the writ — successor liability for continuing nuisance — has been absorbed into modern nuisance and property doctrine differently across jurisdictions, but questus est nobis itself does not appear in any active legal framework.

---

QUESTUS EST NOBISmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

A writ of nui- sance, which, by 15 Edw. I., lay against him to whom a house or other thing that caused a nuisance descended or was alienated; whereas, before that statute the action lay only against him who first levied or caused the nuisance to the damage of his neighbor. Cowell. Qui abjurat regnum amittit regnum, sed non regem; patriam, sed non pa- trem patriæ. 7 Coke, 9. He who abjures the realm leaves the realm, but not the king; the country, but not the father of the country. Qui accusat integræ famæ sit, et non criminosus. Let him who accuses be of clear fame, and not criminal. 3 Inst. 26. Qui acquirit sibi acquirit hæredibus. He who acquires for himself acquires for his heirs. Tray. Lat. Max. 496. Qui adimit medium dirimit finem. He who takes away the mean destroys the end. Co. Litt. 161a. He that deprives a man of the mean by which he ought to come to a thing deprives him of the thing itself. Id.; Litt. § 237. Qui aliquid statuerit, parte inaudita altera, æquum licet dixerit, haud æquum fecerit. He who determines any matter without hearing both sides, though he may have decided right, has not done justice. 6 Coke, 52a; 4 Bl. Comm. 283. Qui alterius jure utitur, eodem jure uti debet. He who uses the right of anoth- er ought to use the same right. Poth. Trai- té De Change, pt. 1, c. 4, § 114; Broom, Max. 473. Qui approbat non reprobat. He who approbates does not reprobate, [i. e., he can- not both accept and reject the same thing.] Qui bene distinguit bene docet. 2 Inst. 470. He who distinguishes well teaches well. Qui bene interrogat bene docet. He who questions well teaches well. 3 Bulst. 227. Information or express averment may be effectually conveyed in the way of inter- rogation. Id. Qui cadit a syllaba cadit a tota causa. He who fails in a syllable fails in his whole Bract. fol. 211. cause. Qui concedit aliquid,concedere videtur et id sine quo concessio est irrita, sine quo res ipsa esse non potuit. 11 Coke, 52. He who concedes anything is considered as conceding that without which his conces- sion would be void, without which the thing itself could not exist. Qui concedit aliquid concedit omne id sine quo concessio est irrita. He who grants anything grants everything without which the grant is fruitless. Jenk. Cent. p. 32, case 63. Qui confirmat nihil dat. He who con- firms does not give. 2 Bouv. Inst. no. 2069. Qui contemnit præceptum contemnit | præcipientem. He who contemns [con- temptuously treats] a command contemns the party who gives it. 12 Coke, 97. Qui cum alio contrahit, vel est, vel esse debet non ignarus conditionis ejus. He who contracts with another either is or ought to be not ignorant of his condition. Dig. 50, 17, 19; Story, Confl. Laws, § 76. Qui dat finem, dat media ad finem necessaria. He who gives an end gives the means to that end. 3 Mass. 129. Qui destruit medium destruit finem. He who destroys the mean destroys the end. 10 Coke, 51b; Co. Litt. 161a; Shep. Touch. 342. Qui doit inheriter al pere doit inher- iter al fitz. He who would have been heir to the father shall be heir to the son. 2 BI. Comm. 223; Broom, Max. 517. N P Q QUI EVERTIT CAUSAM, ETC. 982 Qui evertit causam, evertit causatum futurum. He who overthrows the cause overthrows its future effects. 10 Coke, 51. Qui ex damnato coitu nascuntur inter liberos non computentur. Those who are born of an unlawful intercourse are not reck- oned among the children. Co. Litt. 8a; Broom, Max. 519. Qui facit per alium facit per se. He who acts through another acts himself, [i. e., the acts of an agent are the acts of the princi- pal.] Broom, Max. 818, et seq.; 1 Bl. Comm. 429; Story, Ag. § 440. Qui habet jurisdictionem absolvendi, habet jurisdictionem ligandi. He who has jurisdiction to loosen, has jurisdiction to bind. 12 Coke, 60. Appiied to writs of pro- hibition and consultation, as resting on a sim- ilar foundation. Id. Qui hæret in litera hæret in cortice. He who considers merely the letter of an in- strument goes but skin deep into its meaning. Co Litt. 289; Broom, Max. 685. Qui ignorat quantum solvere debeat, non potest improbus videre. He who does not know what he ought to pay, does not want probity in not paying. Dig. 50, 17, 99. Qui in jus dominiumve alterius suc- cedit jure ejus uti debet. He who suc- ceeds to the right or property of another ought to use his right, [i. e., holds it subject to the same rights and liabilities as attached to it in the hands of the assignor.] Dig. 50, 17, 177; Broom, Max. 473, 478. Qui in utero est pro jam nato habe- tur, quoties de ejus commodo quæritur. | He who is in the womb is held as already born, whenever a question arises for his ben- efit. Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit inju- riam. He who uses his legal rights harms one. 8 Gray, 424. See Broom, Max. no 379. Qui jussu judicis aliquod fecerit non videtur dolo malo fecisse, quia parere necesse est. Where a person does an act by command of one exercising judicial au- thority, the law will not suppose that he act- ed from any

QUESTUS EST NOBISmain

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

Lat. A writ of nuisance, which, by 15 Edw. I., lay against him to whom a house or other thing that caused a nuisance descended or was alienated; whereas, before that statute the action lay only against him who first levied or caused the nuisance to the damage of his neighbor. Cowell. Qui abjurat regnum amittit regnum, sed non rogem; patriam, sed non patrem patris. 7 Coke, 9. He who abjures the realm leaves the realm, but not the king; the country, but not the father of the country. Qui accusat integrse fame sit, et non criminosus. Let him who accuses be of clear fame, and not criminal. 3 Inst. 26. They were proba-.

QUESTUS EST NOBISmain

Rapalje & Lawrence • 1883

-A writ of nuisance, which, by 15 Edw. I., lay against him to whom a house or other thing that caused a nuisance, descended or was alienated; whereas, before that statute the action lay only against him who first levied or caused the nuisance to the damage of his neighbor.-Cowell. Qui abjurat regnum amittit regnum sed non regem; patriam sed non patrem patriæ (7 Co.9): He who abjures the realm leaves the realm, but not the king; the country, but not the father of the country. Qui adimit medium, dirimit finem (Co. Litt. 161): He who takes away the middle destroys the end. Qui concedit aliquid, concedere videtur et id sine quo concessio est irrita, sine quo res ipsa esse non potuit (11 Co. 52): He who concedes anything is considered as conceding that without which his concession would be void, without which the thing itself could not exist. Qui contemnit præceptum, contemnit præcipientem (12 Co. 96): He who contemns the precept, contemns the person giving it. Qui cum alio contrahit, vel est, vel esse debet, non ignarus conditionis ejus: He who contracts with another, either is, or ought to be, acquainted with the condition of the person with whom he contracts. It has well been observed by an eminent judge (Lord Stowell), that "with respect to any ignorance arising from foreign birth and education, it is an indispensable rule of law, as exercised in all civilized countries, that a man who contracts in a country engages for a competent knowledge of the law of contracts of that country. If he rashly presume to contract without such knowledge, he must take the inconveniences resulting from such ignorance upon himself, and not attempt to throw them upon the other party who has engaged under a proper knowledge and sense of the obligation which the law would impose upon him by virtue of that engagement." (Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2 Hagg. Cons. 61; Story Confl. L. & 76.) - Wharton. Qui destruit medium, destruit finem (10 Co. 5rb): He who destroys the mean, destroys the end. Qui doit inheriter al pere doit inheriter al fitz: He who would have been heir to the father, shall be heir to the son. Qui ex damnato coitu nascuntur inter liberos non computentur (Co. Litt. 8a): Those who are born of an unlawful intercourse are not reckoned among the children. Qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita altera, æquum licet dixerit, haud Qui facit per alium facit perse: He æquum fecerit (6 Co.52): He who decides, who acts through another acts through himself.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In