Definition
*Restitutione extraci ab* is a Latin phrase from the nomenclature of historical English writ practice, appearing in connection with writs directed at the restoration of a person — most likely a clergyman — extracted or removed from a church or ecclesiastical position. The phrase translates roughly as "of restitution of one extracted from," with *extraci* (or *extracti*) functioning as the genitive form of the past participle of *extrahere*, meaning "drawn out" or "removed by force."
In the context in which it appears in historical legal sources, the term relates to a writ concerned with restoring a person unlawfully removed from an ecclesiastical benefice or, in a related application, to proceedings touching conditions in restraint of marriage or conditions attached to ecclesiastical offices. The fragmentary record makes precise definition difficult, but the writ appears to belong to the family of restitution writs — extraordinary process by which courts of common law or ecclesiastical courts compelled the return of a displaced incumbent to a church, living, or position from which he had been wrongfully ejected or drawn away.
---
Common Confusion
This term should not be conflated with the broader writ *de restitutione temporalium*, which addressed the restoration of temporal possessions to a bishop following royal investiture, nor with the writ *quare ejecit infra terminum*, which addressed wrongful removal from a leasehold. The specific application of *restitutione extraci ab* appears narrower and more closely tied to the person of a churchman or benefice-holder rather than to property interests directly. Researchers should also distinguish this from the equitable doctrine of restitution in modern law, which shares no procedural lineage with this writ.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term presents significant navigational challenges for corpus researchers. Several cautions apply:
**Fragmentary source record.** The Rapalje & Lawrence entry is itself incomplete as preserved — the definition trails off mid-sentence, referencing conditions in restraint of marriage and the general rule applicable to such conditions. Whether the original entry ran to a fuller treatment or was simply truncated in transcription is unclear. Researchers should treat any single-source definition here as provisional.
**Latin form instability.** Historical writ names in Latin were not always standardized in their transcription or spelling across different reporters, abridgments, and treatises. Variant spellings of *extracti* (as *extraci*, *extrahendi*, *extractus*) may appear in different sources. Corpus searches should use truncated or wildcard search terms to capture orthographic variants.
**Ecclesiastical law intersection.** Because this writ touches ecclesiastical benefices, research cannot remain confined to common law sources. Relevant material may appear in ecclesiastical court records, in the Year Books, in Burn's *Ecclesiastical Law*, or in Gibson's *Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani* — none of which are common law reporters in the strict sense. Law Mind researchers working in English legal history should cross into the ecclesiastical shelf when pursuing this term.
**Conditions in restraint of marriage.** The Rapalje & Lawrence fragment connects this writ to the doctrine of conditions in restraint of marriage, which was a recognized area of both common law and ecclesiastical law. A condition attached to a grant of a church living or benefice that required or forbade marriage would fall at the intersection of these bodies of law. This connection, though incompletely stated in the source, may be the key to understanding the writ's specific function: restoring a clergyman who was removed or "extracted" from his living because he violated such a condition, or conversely, obtaining his reinstatement on the ground that the condition itself was void.
**Obsolescence.** This is a writ of purely historical significance. It belongs to the pre-Judicature Act era of English practice and has no modern procedural equivalent. Researchers encountering this term will be working in English legal history, ecclesiastical law, or the history of extraordinary writs.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence is the sole historical dictionary source for this term in the Law Mind corpus. The entry as preserved reads only: "As to conditions in restraint of [marriage], the general rule is that such a —" before cutting off. This is insufficient to reconstruct a complete doctrinal account from the dictionary source alone.
The incompleteness is itself informative: it suggests the editors treated this term in the context of a larger discussion of writ practice and ecclesiastical conditions rather than as a freestanding entry. Researchers should not read the fragment as a complete statement of the writ's scope.
No other shelf sources in the Law Mind historical dictionary collection appear to carry this term, which reflects its narrow application and the relative obscurity of this category of writ in the general legal dictionary tradition. Blackstone, Coke, and the major abridgments (Comyns, Viner) would be the natural authorities to consult for fuller treatment outside the dictionary corpus.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This writ is exclusively a product of historical English ecclesiastical and common law practice. It has no counterpart in American law, where the First Amendment's Establishment Clause bars civil courts from adjudicating the internal governance of churches and ecclesiastical appointments. Researchers working in American legal history will not encounter this term in domestic sources.
---