Definition
Sequela cause is a Latin-derived term of historical procedural law referring to the process and the pending or depending issue of a cause as it proceeds toward trial. In practical terms, it describes the train or following of a legal action — the procedural sequence that accompanies and flows from a cause once it has been initiated. The phrase captures both the formal mechanism of prosecution or pursuit of a legal matter and the unresolved issues hanging upon its outcome.
The term is drawn from the Latin sequela, meaning a following or consequence, combined with cause in its technical legal sense of a proceeding or matter before a court. Together, sequela cause denotes the procedural tail of a legal action: the steps, dependencies, and pending questions that trail the main cause as it moves through the legal process.
This is an archaic term. It does not appear in modern procedural vocabulary and carries no operational significance in contemporary litigation. Its relevance today is almost entirely historical and antiquarian.
---
Common Confusion
Researchers should not conflate sequela cause with the broader modern concept of causation in tort or criminal law. Modern legal causation — actual cause, proximate cause, foreseeability — is a substantive doctrine governing liability. Sequela cause is a procedural term describing the administrative and processual stream of a pending matter, not a standard of legal responsibility. The words share Latin roots and conceptual adjacency, but the terms operate in entirely different doctrinal registers. Similarly, sequela cause should not be confused with consequential damages or the sequelae of injury in personal injury practice, where sequelae refers to downstream medical consequences of a harmful act.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in pre-modern English and American legal materials — particularly sources from the seventeenth through mid-nineteenth centuries — will occasionally encounter sequela cause in procedural contexts where the flow or pending state of a cause is at issue. Bouvier, citing Cowell's legal glossary (the Interpreter, 1607), preserves the term as part of the inherited Latin-procedural vocabulary that was standard in common law practice before procedural reform.
Several navigational notes for corpus researchers:
First, Cowell's Interpreter is the downstream source for Bouvier's entry. If you are tracing the term beyond Bouvier, Cowell is the next stop. Cowell compiled the Interpreter from civil law and common law practice vocabulary as they coexisted in early seventeenth-century England, making this term likely to have broader currency in civilian and ecclesiastical court records than in common law courts proper.
Second, the term is most likely to appear in records touching on the conduct and management of pending proceedings, not in substantive arguments about causation or liability. If you encounter it in a historical source, look to the procedural posture of the case, not the merits.
Third, do not assume the term carries a fixed technical meaning consistent across sources. Procedural Latin vocabulary of this era was not uniformly applied, and its meaning could shade between courts and jurisdictions. Cross-reference against the specific court's procedural rules and vocabulary conventions.
Fourth, researchers approaching this term through a modern causation lens — arriving from tort or criminal law research — should recalibrate quickly. This term is a procedural fossil, not a causation doctrine.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary provides the only entry in the Law Mind corpus for this term: "The process and depending issue of a cause for trial. Cowel." The entry is deliberately spare, reflecting Bouvier's practice of preserving archaic vocabulary with minimal editorial expansion when the term had already fallen from active use. The citation to Cowell (the Interpreter) signals that Bouvier is transmitting rather than developing the definition — he is acting as a preservation conduit for a term that had largely passed from common law practice by his time.
No other historical dictionary in the corpus — not Black's, not Stroud's, not Wharton's — appears to carry this term, which itself speaks to its marginality in the Anglo-American legal tradition by the nineteenth century. The term's persistence in Bouvier reflects his broader ambition to capture the full sweep of common law and civil law vocabulary, including terms of primarily historical or scholarly interest.
What historical sources do not supply: there is no discussion in the available corpus of how sequela cause functioned in practice, how it was pleaded or invoked, or whether it had particular significance in any specific type of proceeding. Researchers needing that depth will need to work through Cowell directly and through records of the courts — particularly ecclesiastical and civil law courts — where Latin procedural vocabulary of this type had its strongest hold.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This term is drawn from the English common law and civil law procedural tradition. It does not appear to have developed distinct American usage. American treatise writers who preserved it, such as Bouvier, were transmitting it from English sources rather than reporting active American practice.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia: Negligence — Proximate Cause (Legal Cause and Foreseeability)
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia: Criminal Law — Causation (Actual Cause and Proximate Cause)
Note: These entries address modern causation doctrine, which is substantively distinct from sequela cause. They are cross-referenced to assist researchers who arrive at this term through causation research and need to reorient.
---