Definition
A Law French auxiliary verb form appearing in Year Book pleading and judicial records, used to express past perfect or conditional past constructions. "Ust" and its related inflections — "ust este" (had been), "ussent" (they had), "ussomus" (should or would have) — function grammatically in the same register that Latin "fuerat," "habuissent," or "debuissent" would serve in formal Latin legal texts. The forms are encountered almost exclusively in the early English Year Books, where pleadings and judicial colloquies were recorded in the Anglo-Norman legal dialect known as Law French.
The term has no operative legal meaning of its own. It is a grammatical particle, not a term of art. Its significance to researchers is purely linguistic: correctly parsing these verb forms is necessary to understand what a pleader or judge was asserting, denying, or hypothesizing in the original text.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A pronunciation spelling of "used," meaning accustomed or habituated.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): No entry for "ust" as a standalone English word.
Editorial note: The common English "used" and the Law French "ust" share no functional connection beyond superficial phonetic resemblance. A researcher encountering "ust" in a Year Book transcription should not read it as a form of the English verb "to use." The Law French form operates as a past auxiliary, not a lexical verb conveying use or custom.
---
Common Confusion
Researchers unfamiliar with Law French grammar sometimes read "ust" or "ust este" as a garbled or abbreviated form of "used" in the sense of customary practice — a legally significant concept in early common law. This is a false reading. The word here is a grammatical auxiliary carrying tense and mood information, not a substantive word asserting usage or custom. Similarly, "usses" and "ussomus" should not be confused with "usus" (Latin for use or enjoyment of property), which appears in a completely different analytical register.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Year Book records present the most significant challenge. The Year Books — covering roughly Edward I through Henry VIII — were recorded in Law French, a dialect that had diverged substantially from continental French and operated by its own grammatical conventions. Auxiliary verb forms like "ust" appear in the report of direct speech from pleaders and judges, and misreading them collapses the distinction between what a party claimed had already occurred, what they denied had occurred, and what they argued should or would have followed under certain conditions. Those distinctions are often the entire point of a Year Book entry.
Burrill's reference to "Yearb. M. 8 Edw. III. 2" (Michaelmas Term, 8 Edward III) places this usage firmly in the 1330s. Researchers working in Year Books from roughly Edward I through the mid-Tudor period should expect these forms. By the time of the later Year Books and the transition to English law reporting in the sixteenth century, Law French was becoming increasingly formulaic and arcane, but the auxiliary verb forms persisted in pleading records longer than in judicial commentary.
No modern legal dictionary other than specialized Law French glossaries treats these forms in depth. Burrill is one of the few general law dictionaries to flag them at all, which makes his entry a useful pointer even though it does not provide grammatical analysis. Researchers needing deeper treatment should consult dedicated Law French vocabularies — Kelham's Dictionary of the Norman or Old French Language (1779) and the glossaries appended to the Rolls Series Year Book editions remain the standard references for parsing these constructions.
The practical trap is silently skipping unfamiliar auxiliary forms when transcribing or summarizing Year Book passages. Because "ust" and its variants carry tense and mood, omitting them can invert the legal meaning of a passage — turning a denial of past fact into an admission, or a conditional hypothetical into a statement of what actually occurred.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the only treatment among the standard historical law dictionaries. His entry is concise to the point of being a bare gloss: he identifies "ust este" as "had been," "ussent" as "they had," and "usses, ussomus" as "should or would have," all referenced to the same Year Book passage (Michaelmas, 8 Edward III, page 2). This is characteristic of Burrill's treatment of Law French grammatical forms — he catalogs them as encountered without extended analysis.
No entry appears in Bouvier, Black, or the other standard historical dictionaries, reflecting the fact that by the mid-nineteenth century, when those works were compiled, Law French had receded entirely from active practice and its grammatical machinery was of interest only to antiquarians and Year Book scholars.
Burrill's entry is accurate as far as it goes but offers no help to a researcher who needs to recognize variant spellings or understand how these forms interact with the wider structure of Law French verbal inflection.
---