Definition
Scire facias ad audiendum errores is a Latin writ used in appellate practice, specifically in proceedings in error. After a plaintiff in error has assigned the specific errors alleged in the judgment below, this writ is issued to bring the opposing party (the defendant in error) into court to hear those assigned errors and to respond to them. It functions as the procedural mechanism by which the party who obtained the original judgment is formally notified of the appellate challenge and summoned to appear and defend.
The full phrase means, roughly, "that you cause to know, to hear the errors" — that is, a writ commanding that the adverse party be made aware of and given the opportunity to answer the errors assigned against the judgment they hold.
Common Confusion
SCIRE FACIAS AD AUDIENDUM ERRORES vs. SCIRE FACIAS generally: The broader writ of scire facias served many purposes in common law practice — to revive dormant judgments, to proceed against bail, to repeal letters patent, and more. Scire facias ad audiendum errores is a specific and procedurally distinct use of the scire facias form, arising only in the context of writ-of-error proceedings. Researchers encountering "scire facias" in historical sources should not assume that the writ relates to appellate error practice; the modifier ad audiendum errores is essential to identifying this particular writ.
Additionally, this writ should not be confused with the writ of error itself. The writ of error initiates the appellate proceeding and brings the record before the higher court. The scire facias ad audiendum errores is a subsequent step — it issues after the writ of error has been returned and errors assigned, to pull the adverse party into the proceeding.
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in historical common law sources and has no meaningful presence in modern practice. The writ-of-error procedure it belongs to was largely abolished or superseded by statutory appellate procedures and, in federal practice, by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Researchers working with pre-twentieth-century English or American case law and pleading records will encounter this writ as a routine procedural step in error proceedings, and failure to recognize it can obscure the procedural posture of a case.
One specific trap flagged in Bouvier: the scire facias ad audiendum errores must accurately carry over the party names from the judgment being complained of into its recital. A mismatch between the parties named in the writ of error and those named in the citing part of the scire facias constitutes an irregularity in the writ — though Bouvier notes this may be treated as a defect subject to challenge rather than as an automatic nullity. Researchers analyzing historical pleading records should watch for objections grounded in this technical requirement, as they can complicate reconstruction of the procedural history of a case.
The sequence of steps matters for archival navigation: writ of error → assignment of errors → scire facias ad audiendum errores → appearance and joinder in error → argument. Finding a scire facias ad audiendum errores in a file tells the researcher that errors had already been formally assigned and that the case had reached the stage of summoning the adverse party. Documents preceding and following this writ in a court record will bracket the substantive appellate arguments.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary treats this writ under the heading ERRORES, addressing the scire facias ad audiendum errores as the instrument that follows assignment of errors in a writ-of-error proceeding. Bouvier references Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium and Bacon's Abridgement (Error, F) as the underlying authorities, situating the writ firmly within the classical common law treatise tradition.
The one substantive point Bouvier develops is the technical requirement regarding party names: if the recital of the scire facias correctly identifies the parties to the original judgment but the citing portion introduces names that do not appear in the writ of error, the writ is irregular. Bouvier does not elaborate on the consequences of that irregularity beyond noting its existence, which is a gap for researchers — the remedial options (amendment, dismissal, waiver by appearance) must be sought in the treatises Bouvier cites or in case law of the relevant jurisdiction and period.
Older English law dictionaries, including Jacob's Law Dictionary and Termes de la Ley, address scire facias generally but do not always isolate the ad audiendum errores variant with precision. The Bouvier entry is accordingly among the clearer American formulations of this specific writ.
Jurisdictional Note
This writ belonged to the common law procedural system inherited by American courts from England. Its availability and the procedural rules governing it varied by state, and many American jurisdictions modified or abolished writ-of-error practice by statute before or during the nineteenth century. Researchers should consult the procedural statutes and rules of the specific jurisdiction and era under study before drawing conclusions from treatise descriptions of the writ.