Definition
A Latin term meaning "to be recorded" or "to record," used in historical common law procedure in two related but distinct senses.
1. As a writ: Recordari facias loquelam ("that you cause the plaint to be recorded") was a procedural writ used to remove a replevin action from a county or inferior court to a superior court. It functioned as a removal mechanism, directing the lower court to certify its record upward for further proceedings.
2. As a remedial writ in some American jurisdictions: In states such as North Carolina, a writ of recordari developed a distinct function — securing a new trial of a case heard before a justice of the peace, or enabling reversal of a judgment erroneously rendered by such a justice. In this usage it operated analogously to certiorari, bringing the record before a higher court for review and correction.
The term appears in medieval Latin legal sources (Bracton, Fleta) as a verb form describing the act of recording in a court, distinct from its later procedural meaning as a named writ.
Common Confusion
Recordari is frequently confused with certiorari because both involve removing or reviewing proceedings from an inferior tribunal. The distinction is functional and historical: certiorari became the dominant, generalized writ of review in English and American practice, while recordari remained a narrower instrument tied specifically to replevin removal in English procedure and, in certain American states, to review of justice-of-the-peace judgments. The two writs sometimes operated in parallel; researchers encountering recordari in American sources should not assume it carries the same scope or effect as certiorari in the same jurisdiction.
Recordari should also be distinguished from recordum (a record or judicial record) and from the phrase prout patet per recordum ("as appears by the record"), which appear nearby in historical sources and can cause confusion when Latin text is only partially transcribed.
Why It Matters in Research
Historical pattern applies here. This term belongs to a family of procedural writs that largely fell out of use as American courts consolidated appellate and review mechanisms into certiorari, appeal, and statutory removal procedures. Researchers working in early American case law — particularly in Southern and mid-Atlantic states that retained justice-of-the-peace systems well into the nineteenth century — may encounter recordari as live procedure rather than mere antiquity.
Several traps exist for corpus researchers:
First, the writ's function varies by jurisdiction and period. English sources use recordari primarily in the replevin-removal context. American sources, especially from states like North Carolina, use it as a review and correction mechanism closer to certiorari. Applying English procedural meaning to American sources (or vice versa) will produce misreading.
Second, because recordari appears in Latin legal maxims and procedural formulas in close proximity to related terms (recordum, recordata, recordetur), full-text searches may return false positives from incidental usage in records language rather than references to the writ itself.
Third, the writ's decline is uneven. In jurisdictions where justices of the peace retained broad authority late into the 1800s, recordari may appear in reported cases well after it had become obsolete elsewhere. A researcher finding a recordari reference should not assume the source is uniformly archaic.
Fourth, the writ connects to the broader history of replevin procedure, which itself is a trap-laden area — the action underwent significant transformation between its English common law form and its American statutory successors.
Historical Dictionary Support
Anderson and Burrill largely agree on the Latin origin and the core meaning of the term as relating to the act or process of recording in a court context. Burrill roots the term firmly in old English law and quotes Bracton and Fleta as primary authorities, establishing the medieval baseline. Anderson's entry is more practically oriented, giving the full writ name (recordari facias loquelam), identifying the replevin-removal function in English practice, and then pivoting to the American jurisdictional variation in North Carolina.
Neither source provides substantial treatment of the writ's decline or its relationship to certiorari. Burrill's citation to Bracton (fol. 157b) and Fleta (lib. 2, c. 13, § 9) is useful for tracing the medieval procedural background but does not address the American development. Anderson's North Carolina note is the more practically useful entry for American legal historians, though it is compressed. Neither dictionary addresses the consolidation of review mechanisms that eventually made recordari redundant in most American jurisdictions.
Jurisdictional Note
The writ's meaning and availability varied significantly between English and American practice, and among American states. North Carolina's use of recordari as a justice-of-the-peace review mechanism represents a distinctly American adaptation. Researchers should treat any recordari reference as jurisdiction-specific until confirmed otherwise, and should consult local procedural histories before drawing conclusions from the English common law authorities alone.