QUI IMPROVIDE - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

QUI IMPROVIDEAuthored

The Law Mind • 670 words

Definition

Qui improvide (Latin: "who improvidently" or "who unadvisedly") is a term designating a specific form of supersedeas — a writ used to stay or suspend a prior proceeding or writ — issued where the original writ was erroneously sued out or misawarded. The writ of supersedeas qui improvide took its name from the operative language of the instrument, signaling that the underlying writ had been improvidentally issued and therefore ought to be stayed.

In practical terms, the writ functioned as a corrective mechanism within the common law writ system: where a party had improperly obtained a writ — whether through error, procedural defect, or misapplication — the qui improvide supersedeas operated to suspend its effect.

Common Confusion

Qui improvide should not be confused with supersedeas generally, nor with qui tam, despite the shared Latin prefix. Qui tam is a wholly distinct procedural doctrine concerning relator actions brought in the government's name by a private party; it shares no doctrinal lineage with qui improvide. The similarity is purely linguistic. Researchers moving between historical common law materials and modern False Claims Act literature should treat these as entirely separate entries.

Why It Matters in Research

This term is essentially extinct in modern legal usage and will appear almost exclusively in historical sources — English common law reports, early American chancery and common law records, and older treatise literature. Researchers encountering qui improvide in historical documents should recognize it as a subspecies of supersedeas, not a freestanding writ with independent modern significance.

The principal research trap is conflation: qui improvide belongs to the broader family of supersedeas writs, which included several distinct forms tied to specific procedural circumstances. Treating all supersedeas writs as identical obscures the specific ground — improvident issuance of the underlying writ — that qui improvide addressed. A historical document citing a qui improvide supersedeas is telling the researcher something precise: the complaint was not merely that enforcement should pause, but that the original writ should never have issued at all.

The Rapalje & Lawrence entry cross-references Dyer 33, a real report from Sir James Dyer's Reports (published 1585), which is the primary historical citation for the writ's application. Researchers working in Tudor-era or early common law contexts should consult Dyer's Reports directly. The entry also trails into the maxim Qui in jus dominiumve alteri succedit — a distinct maxim about succession to rights — which Rapalje & Lawrence appears to have carried over as a sequential entry, not as an elaboration of qui improvide itself. Do not read these as connected doctrines.

Because this term belongs to the writ system that was largely abolished in England by the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 and rendered obsolete in American federal practice by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938), it carries no procedural relevance in contemporary litigation research. Its value is purely historical and interpretive.

Historical Dictionary Support

Bouvier's and Rapalje & Lawrence agree precisely on the definition: a supersedeas granted where a writ was erroneously sued out or misawarded. There is no meaningful divergence between the two sources. Neither entry elaborates on the procedural mechanism by which the writ was obtained, the showing required of the moving party, or the courts in which it was available — gaps that limit their utility beyond establishing the basic meaning.

Rapalje & Lawrence provides the only historical citation of note (Dyer 33, n. 18), grounding the term in reportable English authority. Bouvier's offers the bare definition without elaboration, which is characteristic of its treatment of narrow procedural Latin terms. Neither source engages with how qui improvide supersedeas interacted with other forms of supersedeas or how courts distinguished an improvidently issued writ from a merely defective one. Researchers needing that granularity will need to go beyond these dictionary sources to the Dyer Reports and early treatise literature on writs.

QUI IMPROVIDEmain

Rapalje & Lawrence • 1883

- A supersedeas granted where a writ was erroneously sued out or misawarded. See Dyer 33, п. (18). Qui in jus dominiumve alteri succedit jure ejus uti debet (D. 50, 17, 177, pr.): He who succeeds to the right or property of another, ought to be clothed with his right. "For instance," says Broom's Leg. Max. (5 edit.) 473, "fee-simple estates are subject, in the hands of the heir or devisee, to debts of all kinds contracted by the deceased." Qui in utero est pro jam nato habetur, quoties de ejus commodo quæritur: He who is in the womb is held as already born, whenever a question arises for his benefit. Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam (Reg. Jur. Civ.): He who exercises a right, does an injustice to nobody. Qui jussu judicis aliquod fecerit non videtur dolo malo fecisse, quia parere necesse est (10 Co. 76): Where a person does an act by command of one exercising judicial authority, the law will not suppose that he acted from any wrongful or improper motive, because it was his bounden duty to obey. Qui non cadunt in constantem virum vani timores sunt æstimandi (7 Co. 27); Those fears are to be esteemed vain which do not affect a firm man. Qui non habet, ille non dat: He who has not, gives not. A person cannot convey a right that is not in him. See NEMO DARE POTEST, &C. Qui non habet in ære, luat in corpore; ne quid peccetur impune (2 Inst. Qui non habet potestatem alienandi habet necessitatem retinendi (Hob. 336): He who has not the power of alienating, Qui non improbat, approbat (3 Inst. 27): He who does not blame, approves. Qui non negat fatetur: He who does not deny, admits. A well-known rule of pleading. Qui non obstat quod obstare potest, facere videtur (2 Inst. 146): He who does not prevent what he can prevent, seems to commit the thing. Qui non prohibet id quod prohibere potest assentire videtur (2 Inst. 308): He who does not forbid what he is able to prevent, appears to assent. So one who enables another to commit a fraud is answerable. And a man who has a title to property offered for sale at an auction, and, knowing his title, stands by and encourages the sale, or does not forbid it, will be bound by the sale, for "Qui non obstat quod obstare potest, facere videtur,” and "Fraus est celare fraudem" (It is a fraud to conceal fraud). See Snell Eq. (5 edit.) 478. Qui non propulsat injuriam quando potest, infert (Jenk. Cent. 271): He who does not repel an injury when he can, induces it. Qui obstruit aditum, destruit commodum (Co. Litt. 161): He who obstructs an entry (on land) takes away the enjoyment. Qui omne dicit, nihil excludit (4 Inst. 81): He who says all, excludes nothing. Qui parcit nocentibus, innocentes punit (Jenk. Cent. 133): He who spares the guilty punishes the innocent. Qui peccat ebrius, luat sobrius (Cary 133): Let him who sins when drunk, be punished when sober. An intoxicated person can derive no privilege from a madness thus voluntarily contracted. On an indictment for murder, however, intoxication may be taken into consideration, to show that the act was not premeditated, and if there has been some contrivance or management to draw the party into drink, or any unfair advantage taken of his intoxication, the court will sometimes relieve. See Snell Eq. (5 edit.) 460. Qui per alium facit, per seipsum facere videtur (Co. Litt. 258): He who does a thing by an agent, is considered as doing it himself. Qui per fraudem agit, frustra agit (2 Rolle 17): What a man does fraudulently, he does in vain.

QUI IMPROVIDEmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

A supersedeas granted where a writ was erroneously sued out or misawarded.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In