QUOD PERMITTAT PROSTERNERE

Definition

A writ directing a defendant to permit the plaintiff to demolish or abate a nuisance affecting the plaintiff's land, or else to appear in court and show cause why the plaintiff should not be allowed to do so. The writ's full name — *quod permittat prosternere* — translates roughly as "that he permit to demolish." Upon proof of the underlying facts, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment authorizing abatement of the nuisance and recovery of damages. The writ was understood to be in the nature of a writ of right applied to nuisance, and was used where one party's structure or activity on adjoining land encroached on or damaged another's property rights. ---

Common Confusion

The writ is closely associated with, and sometimes confused with, the action of nuisance more generally. The distinction matters for research: *quod permittat prosternere* was a specific original writ with its own procedural character — described as "in the nature of a writ of right" — not simply a generic nuisance action or a bill in equity. Researchers should also take care not to conflate it with assize of nuisance, which was a separate and older remedy for nuisance affecting freehold. The two remedies coexisted for a period, with *quod permittat* emerging as a more flexible alternative. ---

Why It Matters in Research

This writ is essentially a historical artifact of English common law pleading and has no direct American successor. Researchers are most likely to encounter it in: **Pre-abolition English practice materials.** The writ was abolished along with the general system of original writs. Any substantive discussion of it in primary sources will predate English procedural reforms of the nineteenth century. Fitzherbert's *Natura Brevium* (cited in Rapalje & Lawrence as "F. N. B. 104") is the key historical reference point; researchers working in early modern English legal materials should consult that source directly when *quod permittat* appears. **American treatises and digests through the mid-nineteenth century.** American legal writers inherited the English common law vocabulary and continued to describe this writ in digests and form books even after it had fallen out of practical use. Its presence in Bouvier's is an example: Bouvier documents the writ as part of the common law inheritance without suggesting it was a live American remedy. Researchers reading nineteenth-century American treatises on nuisance law should treat references to *quod permittat* as historical background, not as operative procedure. **Nuisance law lineage.** Understanding this writ helps explain how nuisance law evolved from property-based writs toward equitable injunctive relief. Modern injunctive remedies for nuisance are the functional descendants of what *quod permittat* was designed to accomplish. Where a researcher is tracing the doctrinal development of nuisance abatement, this writ is part of the chain. **Corpus search traps.** The term appears in variant forms in historical sources. Searches may need to account for *quod permittat prosternere* spelled out in full, abbreviated to *quod permittat*, or referenced simply as the "writ to abate a nuisance" without use of the Latin name at all. ---

Historical Dictionary Support

Rapalje & Lawrence give a compressed entry identifying the writ as abolished and characterizing it as "in the nature of a writ of right, to abate a nuisance," with a citation to Fitzherbert's *Natura Brevium* at folio 104. This is accurate but minimal: the entry is useful mainly for the jurisdictional signal (English law) and the confirmation that the writ was no longer operative at the time of publication. Bouvier is more instructive. His entry supplies the Latin translation ("that he give leave to demolish"), explains the mechanics — the defendant either permits abatement or appears to show cause — and notes that successful proof entitled the plaintiff to both an abatement judgment and damages. Bouvier's characterization of the writ's procedure is consistent with how it is described in earlier English authorities, including Fitzherbert. Both dictionaries treat this as a purely English common law form with no ongoing American application. Neither source addresses equitable nuisance practice or the transition to injunctive relief, which is the gap researchers should be aware of: the dictionaries explain what the writ was, but not what replaced it. ---

Jurisdictional Note

This writ was a creature of English common law and was abolished with the system of original writs in England. It was never substantially naturalized in American practice. American courts addressing nuisance abatement moved toward equitable injunctions rather than adopting this writ form. ---

Related Terms