Definition
A writ used in English ecclesiastical practice to enforce a money judgment against a beneficed clergyman. Where a judgment creditor had obtained a writ of fieri facias (fi. fa.) that was returned nulla bona — meaning the sheriff found no lay goods to seize — the creditor could proceed by sequestrari facias. The writ commanded the bishop of the relevant diocese to enter into the defendant's rectory and parish church, sequester the rents, tithes, and profits of the benefice, and hold them until the plaintiff's debt was satisfied from those ecclesiastical revenues. It operated in the nature of a levari facias, a writ directed at income from land rather than the outright seizure and sale of property.
The practical mechanism was this: because a clergyman's primary assets were often ecclesiastical — his income from his living, the tithes and offerings associated with his benefice — ordinary common law execution processes could not reach them. The sequestrari facias bridged that gap by enlisting the bishop as the instrument of collection, turning the ecclesiastical hierarchy itself into an enforcement mechanism for civil debt.
---
Common Confusion
SEQUESTRARI FACIAS vs. SEQUESTRATION generally: The term can mislead researchers who encounter it alongside the broader doctrine of sequestration in equity or in Chancery proceedings. Those contexts involve a commission of sequestration directed at a contumacious party or at property generally. Sequestrari facias is a distinct, narrower writ: a specific common law process applicable only to judgment enforcement against beneficed clergy through the agency of the bishop. The shared root word does not indicate the same procedure.
SEQUESTRARI FACIAS vs. LEVARI FACIAS: The historical sources consistently describe sequestrari facias as being "in the nature of" a levari facias, which itself commanded collection from rents and profits of land. They are analogous but not identical. Levari facias operated through the sheriff against the defendant's lands generally; sequestrari facias operated through the bishop specifically against ecclesiastical income. A researcher who conflates them will misread the enforcement posture and the officer responsible for execution.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in historical English legal sources and ecclesiastical law materials. Researchers are most likely to encounter it in treatises on common law procedure, ecclesiastical court practice, or biography and records involving clergy defendants in civil litigation. It is essentially obsolete in any active legal sense, having become inapplicable with the reform of English ecclesiastical and civil procedure in the nineteenth century.
Several navigational points matter for corpus research:
First, the writ was a remedy of last resort triggered only after fi. fa. returned nulla bona. Any primary source describing its issuance therefore implies a prior, failed execution attempt. When reading historical litigation records involving clergy, the appearance of sequestrari facias signals the procedural posture: ordinary execution has already failed.
Second, the writ's operation depended entirely on the bishop's cooperation. Rapalje & Lawrence notes a limitation that the historical sources partially obscure: the bishop's role was not simply ministerial. The writ appears not to have been available to enforce all categories of judgment debt equally, which affected its practical utility. Researchers should not assume it functioned as a universal substitute for fi. fa. against ecclesiastical defendants.
Third, the Blackstone citation (3 Bl. Comm. 418) is the anchor reference across all four source dictionaries. Any primary research into this writ should begin there. Archbold's Practice (cited as 2 Archb. Pr. 1284 in Black's) provides additional procedural detail for researchers who need the mechanics of how the bishop was to proceed once the writ issued.
Fourth, because this writ involved the intersection of common law courts and the ecclesiastical hierarchy, it appears in sources that straddle both traditions. Researchers should not limit searches to purely legal databases; ecclesiastical records, diocesan archives, and church history sources may contain relevant material that law-specific collections miss.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
All four source dictionaries agree on the core definition with near-identical language, suggesting the definition was stable and not contested across the period these dictionaries cover. Black's (both editions) and Burrill track Blackstone closely; Rapalje & Lawrence adds the procedural trigger (fi. fa. returned nulla bona) and hints at limitations on the writ's scope that the others do not develop.
The most instructive divergence is Rapalje & Lawrence's partial note — unfortunately truncated in the available text — suggesting the writ may not have extended to enforcing a "simple judgment for a debt" in certain courts. This limitation, whatever its precise contours, is absent from the other sources, which treat the writ's availability more broadly. Researchers relying solely on Black's or Burrill may overstate the writ's reach.
None of the historical dictionaries address the writ's eventual disuse or the legislative reforms that rendered it obsolete. They present it as live procedure, which reflects the vintage of the sources rather than any active status.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Sequestrari facias was a creature of English ecclesiastical and common law practice and has no meaningful American counterpart. The writ presupposes the Church of England's integration into civil enforcement machinery — a structure that never existed in the United States. American researchers will encounter this term only in historical and comparative contexts.
---