Definition
Sittings after term refers to judicial sessions held by a court following the close of a formal term of court. During such sittings, the court retained authority to transact business as if still within term-time, though in practice these sessions were largely confined to disposing of cases already standing for argument or awaiting judgment. The practice was a procedural mechanism to prevent cases from being delayed until the commencement of the next full term, allowing courts to clear outstanding business without waiting for a new term to begin.
The concept is closely tied to the older common law organization of the judicial year into discrete terms — Michaelmas, Hilary, Easter, and Trinity in England — after which courts technically lost the authority to act unless that authority was specifically extended by statute or rule.
Common Confusion
SITTINGS AFTER TERM should not be confused with ADJOURNED TERM, which refers to a continuation of an existing term rather than a session held after the term has formally closed. The distinction matters procedurally: an adjourned term is technically still the original term for most purposes, while sittings after term operate under separate statutory authority and carry different procedural implications. Researchers should also distinguish sittings after term from SPECIAL TERM, which in American practice typically denotes a session convened for a specific purpose outside the regular calendar, without necessarily bearing any relationship to the close of a prior term.
Why It Matters in Research
This term belongs to a now-obsolete procedural vocabulary that researchers will encounter almost exclusively in English common law materials and early American cases drawing on English practice. The term-based structure of the judicial calendar — which gave rise to both the need for sittings after term and the formal rules governing them — was progressively abandoned across U.S. jurisdictions during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as continuous session courts replaced the old term system.
Researchers working in pre-twentieth-century English or American case reporters should be alert to the procedural consequences that flowed from whether an act occurred in term or out of term. A judgment entered, a writ issued, or a motion argued at sittings after term carried different procedural weight in some contexts than one addressed during term proper. Errors in this procedural timeline could affect the validity of proceedings or the running of certain deadlines.
The specific English statutory authority for sittings after term — St. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 32 — represents the kind of enabling legislation that restructured court calendar practice in the Victorian era, part of a broader wave of procedural reform. Researchers tracing the history of English civil procedure reform will find this statute relevant to understanding how courts transitioned away from rigid term structure.
For American researchers: the equivalent vocabulary in early U.S. materials may appear as "adjourned term," "special term," or simply sessions held "out of term." These are not precise synonyms but serve overlapping functions. Confusion between these concepts in historical sources is common, and researchers should not assume that every jurisdiction used the same terminology or assigned the same procedural consequences.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary conflates two related but distinct concepts in its treatment: sittings after term (sessions held following the close of a term, authorized by Victorian statute) and sittings in banc or banc (sessions of the full court assembled to determine questions of law). The entry treats these in close proximity, which reflects their historical connection — sittings after term were often sittings in banc, since the purpose was to dispose of argued matters and pending judgments rather than to conduct jury trials or take evidence.
Wharton's observation, cited in Black's, that the custom at sittings after term was to dispose only of argued cases or cases awaiting judgment is a practical gloss on the statutory authorization, which was broader. This distinction between what courts were legally permitted to do and what they customarily did at such sittings matters for researchers trying to understand whether a particular procedural step taken at sittings after term was valid.
Historical dictionaries of this era generally treat the term as part of a cluster of court-calendar vocabulary — term, nisi prius, sittings, banc — that formed an integrated procedural system. That system is largely inaccessible to modern researchers without some grounding in the structure of the English common law courts prior to the Judicature Acts of the 1870s, which substantially reorganized English court procedure and further diminished the significance of the old term system.
Jurisdictional Note
This concept is primarily English in origin and statutory basis. American courts adopted elements of the English term system but varied significantly in how they structured the judicial calendar and what authority courts retained between or after terms. Researchers working in early American state materials should consult jurisdiction-specific rules and statutes rather than assuming English practice applied directly.