Definition
Replegiari facias (Latin: "you cause to be replevied") was the original Chancery writ that commenced a common law action of replevin in old English law. Directed to the sheriff, it commanded him to cause the distrained goods of the plaintiff to be replevied — that is, restored to the plaintiff's possession upon the giving of security — pending resolution of the dispute over the distraint. The writ was superseded by the Statute of Marlbridge (52 Hen. III, c. 21, 1267), which reformed the process for replevin by enabling the sheriff to act without requiring a writ issuing out of Chancery, thereby making the remedy faster and more accessible. After Marlbridge, replevin could be initiated directly before the sheriff by plaint, rendering replegiari facias a historical artifact of pre-statutory English procedure.
---
Common Confusion
Replegiari facias is sometimes loosely treated as synonymous with replevin itself, but the two are distinct. Replevin is the cause of action — the substantive remedy by which a party seeks return of wrongfully taken or distrained personal property. Replegiari facias was the specific procedural instrument (the originating writ) through which that action was launched in Chancery before the Statute of Marlbridge changed the mechanism. The writ no longer exists; replevin as a cause of action does.
Researchers should also take care not to conflate replegiari facias with the later writ de proprietate probanda, which addressed a subsequent step in replevin proceedings — the trial of property ownership — rather than the initial commencement of the action.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in historical English legal sources and will surface when researching the procedural history of replevin or the effects of the Statute of Marlbridge. Researchers encountering the term in pre-1267 or early common law materials should understand it as the procedural ancestor of modern replevin process, not as a writ with any continuing force.
The key navigational point: because replegiari facias was abolished by statute in the thirteenth century, any source using the term after Marlbridge is either (a) describing the old law for comparative or historical purposes, or (b) using the Latin phrase loosely to refer to replevin process generally. Distinguish carefully between these uses when interpreting the authority of the source.
For researchers tracing the development of personal property remedies in Anglo-American law, replegiari facias is the starting point in a chain that runs from this Chancery writ through the sheriff's plaint process under Marlbridge and eventually into the codified replevin statutes adopted in American jurisdictions. Blackstone's Commentaries (3 Bl. Comm. 146) remains the canonical secondary source for placing this writ in procedural context.
The writ also illustrates a broader pattern in legal history: the displacement of cumbersome Chancery-originated writs by more expedient local or statutory mechanisms. Researchers working on the history of writs, the evolution of Chancery jurisdiction, or the development of possessory remedies will find replegiari facias relevant as a case study in that displacement.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The four source dictionaries are in precise agreement on all substantive points: replegiari facias was the original Chancery writ commencing replevin; it was superseded by the Statute of Marlbridge (52 Hen. III, c. 21); and the authority is Blackstone's Commentaries, 3 Bl. Comm. 146. Burrill adds the Latin gloss "you cause to be replevied," which is the closest translation and usefully distinguishes the writ's command structure. Rapalje & Lawrence alone identifies the writ as issuing "out of Chancery," a precision worth noting because it situates the writ within Chancery's original process jurisdiction rather than in the common law courts directly.
No source disagrees, and none provides additional procedural detail — such as the required sureties, the sheriff's role, or the mechanics of the replevying. Researchers needing that procedural depth must go to Blackstone directly or to Bracton's De Legibus, which predates Marlbridge and describes the pre-statutory replevin process in greater detail. The dictionaries, in other words, confirm the writ's identity and fate but do not reconstruct its operation.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Replegiari facias has no application in American law as a live procedural instrument. American jurisdictions adopted replevin through statutory frameworks from the founding era onward, and none preserved the Chancery writ form. The term appears in American legal literature only in historical discussion of replevin's English origins.
---