Definition
Relicta verificatione (Latin: "the verification having been abandoned") is a procedural term from historical common law pleading describing a specific form of confession of judgment. It applies where a defendant, having already entered a plea, subsequently withdrew that plea and confessed judgment by cognovit actionem — that is, acknowledged the plaintiff's action as valid and consented to judgment being entered against them without further contest. The full phrase most commonly encountered in the sources is cognovit actionem relicta verificatione, meaning the defendant confessed the action after abandoning the verification (proof) of his plea.
In substance, the term captures a two-stage procedural event: (1) a plea was entered, initiating the formal process by which the defendant would have been required to verify or prove his defense; and (2) that plea was then withdrawn (relicta, abandoned), and the defendant confessed judgment in its place. This distinguished the relicta verificatione confession from a simple cognovit actionem entered before any plea, and from a confession of judgment by nil dicit (where the defendant said nothing at all) or by non sum informatus (where counsel declared the defendant uninstructed to defend).
---
Common Language
This term has no meaningful presence in ordinary modern English. Relicta and verificatione are Latin terms rarely encountered outside legal, ecclesiastical, or academic contexts. Omitted.
---
Common Confusion
RELICTA VERIFICATIONE vs. COGNOVIT ACTIONEM: These terms are closely related but not interchangeable. Cognovit actionem is the genus — the general act of confessing the plaintiff's action. Relicta verificatione is the species — a cognovit actionem entered specifically after a plea had been pleaded and then withdrawn. The phrase cognovit actionem relicta verificatione names the complete procedural event; cognovit actionem alone does not signal that a plea was first interposed and abandoned.
RELICTA VERIFICATIONE vs. NIL DICIT: Both result in confession of judgment, but nil dicit occurs where the defendant fails to plead at all. Relicta verificatione presupposes a plea was in place before the confession. The distinction mattered procedurally under common law pleading rules and may appear in historical records where understanding which form of confession was used affects interpretation of the record.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is an extinct procedural term. It belongs entirely to the common law pleading system that preceded code pleading reforms in the nineteenth century — in the United States, largely displaced after the Field Code of 1848 and successor civil procedure codes; in England, after the Judicature Acts of 1873–75. Researchers will encounter it almost exclusively in pre-reform case reporters, plea rolls, and treatise literature.
Several navigational points bear attention:
First, the term appears in source records as part of the compound phrase cognovit actionem relicta verificatione, not typically as a standalone entry. Searching for relicta verificatione alone will yield fewer hits than searching the full compound or cognovit actionem across historical reporters.
Second, the procedural significance of the withdrawal of the plea (the relicta) is that it foreclosed any defense the defendant might have raised. A judgment entered relicta verificatione was therefore a judgment by deliberate abandonment of contest after the defendant had already signaled an intention to defend. This is relevant when evaluating the finality or strength of historical judgments: such a confession was a more considered act than a default, but different in character from a judgment after trial.
Third, researchers consulting colonial American records, early state court records, or English plea rolls will need to recognize that clerical abbreviations and Latin contractions were common. The phrase may appear in abbreviated or partially anglicized form.
Fourth, this term connects to the broader cluster of confession-of-judgment practice, which, while radically transformed, has not entirely disappeared. Modern cognovit notes and confession-of-judgment clauses in commercial contracts carry historical lineage traceable through this practice, though the procedural mechanics are entirely different.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both Black's first and second editions carry essentially identical definitions, each attributing the explanation to Wharton (Francis Wharton's Law Lexicon or a similar Wharton reference work). The definitions are brief and consistent: they define relicta verificatione as the label applied when a judgment was confessed by cognovit actionem after plea pleaded and the plea was withdrawn.
Neither edition expands beyond this single-sentence treatment, which reflects the term's narrow and technical scope — it was a descriptive label for a procedural event rather than a doctrine generating substantial case law commentary. The historical dictionaries do not address the evidentiary or strategic dimensions of why a defendant might withdraw a plea in favor of cognovit, nor do they situate the term within the broader pleading reform debates of the nineteenth century. Researchers seeking that context will need to go beyond dictionary sources to pleading treatises such as Chitty's Treatise on Pleading (various editions) or Stephen's Principles of Pleading.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Relicta verificatione is a term of English common law pleading and was applied in American jurisdictions that followed common law pleading practice prior to code reform. Its operational relevance ended at different times in different states depending on when each adopted code or reformed pleading systems. It has no recognized meaning in modern civil procedure in any common law jurisdiction.
---