Definition
Tionem non (more fully rendered in historical practice as a writ associated with scire facias procedure following reversal of judgment) is a procedural writ in historical common law that lies where execution on a judgment has been levied and the funds collected, but the underlying judgment is subsequently reversed on appeal or in error before the money has been paid over to the plaintiff. In such circumstances, a scire facias must first issue before a writ of restitution can be obtained to compel return of the funds wrongfully collected.
The term appears in historical English practice as a component of post-judgment procedural machinery — specifically within the cluster of writs governing what happens when an execution is carried out but the judgment supporting it is later undone.
---
Common Confusion
Tionem non is not itself a standalone writ name in the same sense as certiorari or scire facias. Historical sources treat it as a qualifying or descriptive element within pleading and writ practice, which means researchers encountering the phrase in older sources must read it in its full procedural context. It is easily confused with, or collapsed into, the broader scire facias procedure it precedes. The writ of restitution — the remedy ultimately sought — is a distinct instrument; tionem non describes the procedural condition triggering the need for scire facias before restitution can issue, not the restitution itself.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term will appear almost exclusively in pre-twentieth-century English and early American common law materials. Researchers encountering it should understand several navigational points:
First, the term surfaces in the context of appellate reversal and post-execution procedure — a procedural corridor that has been substantially reorganized under modern civil procedure rules in both English and American courts. Modern researchers looking for the functional equivalent should look to rules governing restitution after reversal, supersedeas bonds, and stay of execution pending appeal.
Second, because the term is fragmentary as it appears in surviving sources (Black's entry presents it without full Latin context), researchers working with manuscript court records or early printed reports may find variations in spelling and phrasing. The full Latin phrase from which "tionem non" is drawn relates to the Latin pleading tradition in which parties would plead "actionem non" or similar negative declarations; the fragment suggests a pleading or writ formula that denied or conditioned the right to proceed without prior scire facias.
Third, the procedural sequence embedded in this term — judgment, execution, levy, reversal, scire facias, restitution — is an important chain for researchers working in early American appellate history. Each link in the chain had its own writ, its own timing requirements, and its own potential for procedural forfeiture. Missing a step, as tionem non implies, meant the writ of restitution was unavailable until scire facias was first obtained.
Fourth, the encyclopedia entries flagged as matches (non-solicitation, non-disclosure, non-compete) are false positives driven by the word fragment "non." Researchers should disregard those connections entirely — this term has no relationship to modern employment or contract law.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary is the sole identified source for this entry and provides a compressed but substantively accurate description of the procedural context: execution levied, judgment reversed, scire facias required before restitution. The entry cites Chitty's practice manual and Foster on Scire Facias — both standard nineteenth-century English procedural authorities — confirming that the term was recognized in English practice and had reached the American legal dictionary tradition through that channel.
The Black's entry is notable for what it omits: it does not provide the full Latin form of the phrase, does not explain the pleading mechanics that generated the term, and does not trace how or whether American jurisdictions adopted or modified the procedure. This is characteristic of the Black's treatment of archaic writ practice generally — sufficient for identification, insufficient for deep procedural reconstruction.
No other major historical legal dictionaries in the Law Mind corpus independently treat this term, which suggests it occupied a narrow and technical position even in its period of active use.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This writ form is English in origin and was received into early American common law practice, but it did not survive the procedural reforms of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in any active form. American jurisdictions replaced the underlying writ machinery with statutory and rules-based procedures governing stays of execution, supersedeas, and post-reversal restitution. Researchers working in jurisdictions that retained common law forms longer (notably some Southern states into the early twentieth century) may encounter the term in later sources than expected.
---