Definition
A writ in English law directing the mayor of the staple to certify to the lord chancellor a statute-staple that had been taken before him, where the party holding the document detained it and refused to produce it. The writ operated as a compulsory disclosure mechanism: when a debtor or other party in possession of a statute-staple withheld it, stapulz provided the procedural means to obtain an authenticated record of its contents from the official before whom it was originally executed.
To understand stapulz, two underlying concepts are necessary. A staple was a designated town or market authorized by the Crown for the trading of certain commodities, governed by its own law merchant and administered by an elected mayor. A statute-staple was a formal bond or acknowledgment of debt executed before the mayor of the staple, which carried accelerated enforcement rights against the debtor's lands, goods, and person. Because the statute-staple was a physical instrument of considerable legal force, a party who possessed it and refused to surrender or produce it could obstruct enforcement. Stapulz was the remedy for that obstruction.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term belongs to a cluster of highly specialized medieval and early modern English commercial law writs that rarely appear outside of antiquarian legal dictionaries and treatises on the law merchant or staple court practice. Researchers encountering stapulz in historical sources should treat it as a marker of staple court jurisdiction and the statute-staple enforcement regime, not general common law debt procedure.
The Black's second edition entry is fragmentary — the definition appears to have been cut off mid-sentence ("There" is the final word as recorded), which is a known artifact of truncation in some historical dictionary compilations. Researchers relying solely on that entry will find it incomplete and should supplement with primary sources on staple court practice or treatises addressing the Statute of the Staple (27 Edw. III, stat. 2, 1353) and related procedural writs.
The practical research trap here is conflating stapulz with the better-known writ of statute-merchant or with the general body of statute-staple enforcement writs such as the writ of extent. These are related but distinct instruments. Stapulz specifically addressed the certification problem — the refusal to produce the instrument — rather than the enforcement of the debt itself.
Because this term operates at the intersection of royal commercial policy, the law merchant, and chancery procedure, corpus researchers should expect to find it most densely in materials concerning fourteenth- and fifteenth-century English trade law rather than in later common law sources, where staple court jurisdiction had largely faded.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) is the sole source in the Law Mind corpus offering a definition of stapulz, and that definition is truncated. What the entry does establish is the procedural function: certification by the mayor of the staple to the lord chancellor upon a party's refusal to produce the instrument. The chancery dimension is significant — it confirms that stapulz operated in equity-adjacent space, where the chancellor could act on certified information to compel or remedy what the ordinary staple court machinery could not.
Historical dictionaries generally provide minimal coverage of the full range of staple court writs, focusing instead on the more frequently litigated statute-staple and statute-merchant instruments. Stapulz, being a subsidiary procedural writ rather than a substantive enforcement mechanism, falls into the gap that most dictionary compilers did not systematically address. Researchers requiring fuller treatment should look to period treatises on the law merchant and chancery practice, as well as the Close Rolls and Chancery records of the relevant period, rather than expecting secondary dictionary sources to supply a complete picture.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Stapulz was exclusively a writ of English law, tied to the institutional structure of the royal staple courts established by medieval statute. It has no counterpart in modern English law, and no American reception. Researchers working in U.S. legal history will not encounter it in domestic sources.
---