Definition
A judicial writ in English ecclesiastical law directing the discharge of a sequestration that had been imposed on the profits of a church benefice. The writ was granted by the bishop acting under the sovereign's command and served a compulsory purpose: to force a parson (the incumbent of a benefice) to appear at the suit of another party. Once the parson appeared as required, he could obtain the writ of sequestro habendo to secure the release of the sequestration and regain access to the profits of his living.
In practical terms, sequestration of a benefice's profits functioned as a form of ecclesiastical leverage — withholding income from an incumbent until he complied with a legal demand, most commonly the obligation to appear before a court. The writ of sequestro habendo was the remedy that lifted that hold upon compliance.
---
Common Confusion
Sequestro habendo should not be confused with the broader writ of sequestration itself, nor with the modern civil remedy of sequestration used in equity and chancery proceedings. The sequestration here is distinctly ecclesiastical in character: it applies to the profits of a benefice rather than to personal or real property generally, and its release mechanism — the writ of sequestro habendo — was a specialized ecclesiastical-civil instrument with no direct counterpart in modern law. Researchers working with early modern English legal records may also encounter sequestration in the context of Chancery enforcement against contumacious defendants; those are related but structurally distinct proceedings.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term will appear almost exclusively in pre-nineteenth-century English ecclesiastical and common-law records. Researchers should be aware of several navigational points:
First, the writ sits at the intersection of ecclesiastical and royal jurisdiction. Its issuance by the bishop at the sovereign's command reflects the hybrid character of English ecclesiastical law in the early modern period — canonical in form but increasingly subject to royal oversight and common-law procedural norms. Sources treating this writ will therefore appear in both ecclesiastical law compilations and common-law registers, particularly the Registrum Omnium Brevium (Reg. Jud.), which Black's cites directly.
Second, the term is highly archaic and was already a historical artifact by the time Black's Law Dictionary was compiled in the late nineteenth century. It appears in the dictionaries as a retrospective entry rather than a description of living practice. Researchers consulting sources from the seventeenth or eighteenth century will find the writ in more active usage contexts.
Third, the mechanism described — sequestration as a coercive device to compel appearance, lifted by writ upon compliance — is important context for understanding how ecclesiastical courts enforced process against absent or recalcitrant incumbents. The writ of sequestro habendo thus reveals something about the enforcement architecture of the pre-Reformation and early post-Reformation English church courts, which lacked the contempt powers of common-law courts and relied instead on property-based pressure.
Fourth, benefice-related litigation in this period implicates a dense network of related writs and proceedings: quare impedit, darrein presentment, and various prohibition writs issued from common-law courts to check ecclesiastical overreach. Researchers tracking any single thread in this area should expect to move across jurisdictional lines frequently.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both editions of Black's are in agreement on the substance of this entry, with the second edition providing a cleaner and more complete statement. The core definition is stable across both: judicial writ, ecclesiastical law, discharging sequestration of benefice profits, bishop acting on sovereign's command, purpose of compelling appearance, release available upon appearance.
The first edition text as preserved in the source material is fragmentary — the entry appears to have been corrupted in transcription, with text from an unrelated entry (serjeants at law) bleeding into the sequestro habendo entry. Researchers relying on first-edition text should treat that passage with caution and use the second edition as the controlling authority for this definition.
Neither edition provides extended doctrinal discussion. Both treat this as a reference entry pointing to Reg. Jud. 36 (the Registrum Judiciale, a register of judicial writs) for further authority. No modern treatise development of this term is reflected in either source, which is consistent with the writ's obsolescence by the nineteenth century.
What the historical dictionaries do not address is the procedural history of how sequestration of a benefice was originally imposed — the antecedent writ or order that the sequestro habendo was designed to discharge. Researchers needing that context will have to look beyond Black's to ecclesiastical law treatises such as Burn's Ecclesiastical Law or Gibson's Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This writ is specific to English ecclesiastical law and has no recognized equivalent in American law. American jurisdictions did not inherit the benefice system or the ecclesiastical court structure that gave rise to sequestro habendo. Researchers working in American legal history will not encounter this term in domestic sources.
---