Definition
"With" is a preposition appearing throughout legal instruments, pleadings, statutes, and procedural rules, where it denotes connection, accompaniment, or concomitance between two things, acts, or parties. Though a common English word, its legal significance lies in how courts and procedural rules interpret it to resolve questions of timing, attachment, and associated obligation.
In procedural contexts, "with" most often raises the question of whether it imposes a simultaneous or merely a conjunctive requirement — that is, whether two things must occur at the same moment or simply be linked together as a combined obligation. Courts have generally held that "with" does not always mean "at the exact same time," but rather that the two things must be filed or presented together in a sufficiently associated manner. An affidavit required to be filed "with a pleading," for example, has been construed to permit both documents to be filed simultaneously but separately, rather than requiring physical attachment.
In transactional and contractual language, "with" signals accompanying terms, conditions, or encumbrances — as in a conveyance made "with covenants" or property transferred "with all appurtenances."
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Primarily a preposition indicating accompaniment, association, or instrumentality (e.g., "came with me," "cut with a knife"). The entry for "with" as an alternative form of "withe" (a flexible twig or binding) reflects an archaic variant unrelated to the preposition's legal or common use.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster's 1913 similarly redirects "with" only in the sense of "withe," a binding or flexible branch — again unrelated to the preposition's standard use.
Editorial note: The common preposition "with" carries its ordinary sense into legal documents, but the legal question is almost never about the word's meaning in isolation. The gap between common and legal usage is one of interpretive weight: in everyday speech, "with" loosely implies accompaniment; in legal instruments and procedural rules, courts must decide whether "with" creates a timing requirement, a condition of validity, or merely a procedural grouping. The apparent simplicity of the word masks the interpretive stakes.
Common Confusion
"With" is frequently read as imposing strict simultaneity — a trap in procedural contexts. Courts have consistently distinguished between "with" (conjunctive, associated) and "simultaneously" or "at the same time" (strictly contemporaneous). A document required to be filed "with" another is generally not defective simply because the two were filed moments apart or deposited in separate folders in the same office, provided they are sufficiently connected in submission. Researchers reviewing older procedural challenges should be alert to arguments that turned on this distinction.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encounter "with" as a term of legal art most often in three contexts: (1) procedural rules governing the timing and manner of filing; (2) conveyancing and transactional instruments, where "with" introduces covenants, warranties, or appurtenant rights; and (3) statutory construction, where the word's scope can determine whether a requirement is conjunctive or conditional.
In historical sources, the interpretive question surrounding "with" in procedural rules was live and contested. Older cases addressing filing requirements often turned on whether "with" meant physical attachment, simultaneous deposit, or merely associated submission. Researchers working in nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century procedural records should not assume modern relaxed interpretations applied — some courts in that period read "with" more strictly.
Jurisdictional variation in procedural rules means that the same word can carry different operative meaning depending on the governing statute or local rule. A court construing a state filing rule requiring an affidavit to be filed "with" a complaint may reach a different result than a federal court construing analogous language. When tracking procedural requirements across jurisdictions, researchers should not rely on the word "with" alone to determine timing obligations without consulting the controlling interpretive authority for that jurisdiction.
The term also appears in combination phrases — "with prejudice," "with costs," "with all faults," "with covenants" — where "with" itself is less significant than the phrase it introduces. Researchers should index such combinations under the operative noun or adjective, not under "with" alone.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier defines "with" as a preposition "noting connection, appendage, company of, and concomitance" — a broadly accurate summary that correctly identifies the word's legal function as relational rather than precisely temporal. Bouvier adds no elaboration beyond this single-sentence gloss, which reflects the word's treatment in nineteenth-century legal lexicography as too ordinary to require extended definition.
Anderson is more practically useful, focusing on the procedural question courts actually faced: whether "with a pleading" imposes a filing-at-the-same-time requirement. Anderson's answer — that it does not necessarily do so — tracks the weight of judicial authority on the point and provides the kind of navigational guidance that Bouvier omits. Anderson's treatment of the Kentucky authority cited by Bouvier implicitly extends it into the procedural domain, which is where the word generates the most litigation.
Neither source addresses the transactional uses of "with" (covenants, warranties, appurtenances) or its role in statutory construction. These are significant omissions for a researcher working outside the procedural context.
Jurisdictional Note
State procedural rules vary in how strictly they construe filing requirements stated in terms of "with." Some jurisdictions have by rule or decision clarified that "with" means simultaneous filing; others treat it as a conjunctive requirement satisfied by reasonably associated submission. Federal courts applying their own rules generally follow the more relaxed reading. Researchers should verify controlling local authority before drawing conclusions from the word alone.