Definition
A pleading term with distinct meanings across procedural systems, now largely obsolete in modern practice.
1. Admiralty. The third pleading in sequence, filed by the defendant in response to the plaintiff's replication. It follows the libel (complaint) and the replication, and precedes any further responsive pleading.
2. Civil Law. Equivalent to the surrejoinder — the plaintiff's answer to the defendant's rejoinder, being the fourth pleading in the common law sequence.
3. Canon Law. Equivalent to the rejoinder — the defendant's answer to the plaintiff's replication, being the third pleading in sequence. Canon law usage thus assigns "triplication" one step earlier in the chain than civil law usage.
In all systems, the term reflects the older practice of extended pleading exchanges that could continue through multiple rounds before the parties reached a formal issue for decision.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The action or result of triplicating — making something three times as large or producing three copies.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The act of tripling, or making threefold, or adding three together. Webster's also cross-references the term directly to "surrejoinder," acknowledging its legal meaning.
The legal term draws loosely on the numerical root — triplication is roughly the "third response" in a pleading chain — but the legal meaning is procedural and sequential, not mathematical. A researcher encountering "triplication" in a historical legal document should not read it as a general reference to multiplication or copying.
Common Confusion
The term is easily confused across the three procedural systems in which it appears. In admiralty, triplication is the defendant's second pleading (after the answer). In civil law, it corresponds to the surrejoinder, which is the plaintiff's fourth pleading. In canon law, it corresponds to the rejoinder, which is the defendant's third pleading. The same word thus maps to different parties and different positions in the sequence depending on the legal system. Researchers must identify the governing procedural framework before interpreting any reference to triplication in a historical source.
Separately, triplication should not be confused with replication (the plaintiff's answer to the plea or answer) or surrejoinder (the civil law equivalent). The terms are consecutive steps in the same pleading chain, and historical writers sometimes used them loosely or interchangeably.
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in pre-modern sources. Researchers are most likely to encounter it in historical admiralty records, ecclesiastical court proceedings, or civil law treatises. Its presence in a document is a reliable indicator of the procedural era and system: extended multi-round pleading exchanges of this kind had substantially disappeared from English common law practice by the nineteenth century, and American procedure effectively ended them with the adoption of code pleading and later the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The cross-system variation is a genuine research trap. Bouvier assigns triplication its admiralty meaning as the primary definition, then notes the civil and canon law equivalents separately — but not all historical sources are this careful. A treatise writer trained in civilian or ecclesiastical procedure may use "triplication" to mean what a common lawyer would call a rejoinder or surrejoinder. Always read the term in its procedural context.
For corpus researchers, triplication is a node in the broader pleading-sequence vocabulary. Tracing a historical dispute requires identifying the full chain: libel or declaration → answer or plea → replication → rejoinder → surrejoinder (triplication in civil law) → rebutter → surrebutter. The Law Mind corpus likely contains these terms scattered across admiralty, chancery, and ecclesiastical materials; triplication is the least common of them.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier is the primary source in the Law Mind corpus for this term. His entry is compressed but accurate on the key point: triplication is a second-order admiralty pleading following the replication, and it maps differently onto the civil and canon law equivalents. Bouvier does not elaborate on practice or provide illustrative examples, which is characteristic of his treatment of obsolete procedural terms.
Webster's 1913 is notable for acknowledging both the general English meaning (making threefold) and the legal meaning (surrejoinder), citing Glanvill — the twelfth-century treatise on English law — as authority. This suggests the term had English common law usage at an early date, though by the modern period it had retreated into admiralty and ecclesiastical contexts.
No modern legal dictionary treats triplication as an active term. Its absence from current sources confirms its obsolete status.
Jurisdictional Note
Triplication as an active pleading concept belongs to historical English admiralty and ecclesiastical courts, and to the civil law tradition. It has no functional equivalent in modern American federal or state civil procedure. Researchers working in Louisiana or other jurisdictions with civil law heritage may encounter the term in older state court materials.