Definition
Sequestratio (Latin) is a civil law term for the judicial or consensual separation of a disputed thing from the possession of both contending parties during litigation. The disputed property — whether movable or immovable — is placed in the custody of a neutral third party (a sequestrator) pending resolution of the underlying contest. Neither party retains possession; instead, the thing is held in suspension until the court determines who is entitled to it.
Common Confusion
Sequestratio should not be conflated with the broader English-law concept of sequestration, though they share a root and a general purpose. Sequestratio is a specific civil law term of art describing the removal of disputed property from both parties' possession pending adjudication. English-law sequestration, by contrast, frequently operates as a coercive remedy against a party in contempt, or as a process for collecting a judgment — purposes that extend well beyond neutral preservation of disputed property. Researchers moving between civil law and common law sources will encounter both terms; they are related but not interchangeable. See also: SEQUESTRATION.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Two forms are recognized across all historical sources:
Voluntary sequestratio: Effected by the mutual agreement of all parties to the dispute. The parties themselves consent to the arrangement, selecting a custodian and terms without court compulsion.
Necessary (judicial) sequestratio: Ordered by a judge, typically where the parties cannot agree or where preservation of the disputed property requires immediate neutral custody. The court imposes the sequestration over the objection or without the cooperation of one or both parties.
Why It Matters in Research
This is a Latin-form civil law term, and researchers should expect to encounter it almost exclusively in sources drawing on Roman or continental legal tradition — Justinian's Corpus Juris, later civilian commentators, and American legal dictionaries that were themselves synthesizing civil law sources. Common law treatises will typically use the anglicized form sequestration rather than sequestratio.
The key research trap: all four historical dictionaries in the Law Mind corpus reproduce nearly identical language, tracing back to a shared civil law source (identified in Black's 2nd edition as "Brown," likely Browne's Civil and Admiralty Law). This convergence signals that the corpus entries are transmitting a received civilian definition rather than independently analyzing the doctrine. A researcher should not treat four-dictionary agreement here as four independent confirmations of scope — it likely reflects a single lineage.
The voluntary/necessary distinction is consistent across all sources and is the operative analytical division for research purposes. When reading historical pleadings or chancery records that invoke sequestratio, identifying which form was invoked will determine whether you are looking for a consent order or a judicial decree.
Jurisdictional relevance: sequestratio as a formal term has most practical relevance in Louisiana, Quebec, and other mixed or civil law jurisdictions, and in admiralty and ecclesiastical law contexts where civilian influence persisted. In purely common law jurisdictions, the doctrine is absorbed into sequestration or interpleader without the Latin designation.
Historical Dictionary Support
The four source dictionaries are in near-complete agreement, differing only in minor matters of punctuation and formatting. Black's 1st edition, Black's 2nd edition, Rapalje & Lawrence, and Bouvier all define sequestratio as "the separating or setting aside of a thing in controversy from the possession of both parties that contend for it," and all reproduce the voluntary/necessary bipartition. Black's 2nd edition is the only source to identify a secondary authority ("Brown"), which provides the one point of differentiation among the four entries.
What the historical dictionaries do not address: the identity or qualifications of the sequestrator, what property interests are cognizable, what happens to income or proceeds generated by sequestered property during the pendency of litigation, or how sequestratio interacts with other provisional remedies. Researchers requiring that level of detail must go beyond the dictionary layer to civilian treatises or primary sources in Roman and canon law.
Jurisdictional Note
Sequestratio as a discrete civil law concept retains greatest significance in Louisiana, where civilian tradition informs property and procedure, and in admiralty and ecclesiastical law contexts. Common law jurisdictions absorb the underlying function into sequestration, interpleader, or receivership without using the Latin term. Research across jurisdictions requires attention to which procedural vehicle is carrying the same substantive purpose.