Definition
A writ of false judgment is a common law appellate remedy used to challenge an erroneous judgment rendered by an inferior court not of record. It operated as a form of appeal, enabling a party aggrieved by a decision of such a court — one proceeding according to the course of the common law but without the formal record-keeping of a court of record — to bring that judgment before a superior court for review and correction.
The writ was distinct from a writ of error, which lay to correct errors appearing on the face of the record of a court of record. Because inferior courts not of record kept no formal record in the technical legal sense, a writ of error could not reach their judgments; the writ of false judgment filled that gap.
---
Common Confusion
WRIT OF FALSE JUDGMENT vs. WRIT OF ERROR: These writs served parallel appellate functions but applied to fundamentally different court categories. A writ of error lay to courts of record, where a formal record existed and the reviewing court could examine it for legal error. A writ of false judgment lay to inferior courts not of record, where no such record existed. Researchers encountering either writ in historical sources should first determine the status of the originating court before assuming which instrument would have been used.
WRIT OF FALSE JUDGMENT vs. WRIT OF ATTAINT: The writ of attaint was a separate common law remedy directed at correcting a false verdict by a jury, not a false judgment by a court. Though both writs address injustice in prior proceedings, they operate at different stages and against different actors.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is a historical evolution term. The writ of false judgment belongs to a category of common law appellate machinery that was largely abolished or superseded by statutory appeals procedures in both England and the United States during the nineteenth century. Researchers will encounter it almost exclusively in pre-reform English legal sources, early American common law materials, and treatises on common law pleading and practice.
Several navigational points deserve attention:
First, the phrase "appears to be still in use" in both Black's editions signals editorial uncertainty even at the time of publication. Black's is not asserting the writ was alive and thriving — it is hedging. Researchers should treat this writ as functionally obsolete in any American jurisdiction by the mid-nineteenth century and as marginally surviving in English practice only in the most specialized circumstances.
Second, the writ's utility depended entirely on the distinction between courts of record and courts not of record — a distinction that was sharp and consequential in classical common law but has been significantly eroded or redefined in modern court systems. When reading historical sources, researchers must reconstruct the court-status framework of the period and jurisdiction in question before assessing whether this writ, rather than some other appellate vehicle, would have applied.
Third, the reference in Black's 2nd Edition to Archbold's Practice (Archb. Pr. 1427) points researchers toward English procedural treatises as the primary substantive source. American treatises of the same era rarely treat this writ in depth, reflecting its limited transplantation to American practice.
Fourth, corpus researchers should be alert to terminological overlap: "false judgment" in non-writ contexts can appear in older sources simply as a synonym for an erroneous or unjust decision, without reference to any formal writ. Context determines whether a procedural instrument or a descriptive phrase is intended.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both Black's editions define the writ in nearly identical terms, with the second edition adding the Archbold citation and making explicit that the writ lay specifically to courts "not of record proceeding according to the course of the common law." The qualifier "proceeding according to the course of the common law" is important: it distinguished these inferior common law courts from local or customary tribunals that might proceed according to borough custom or other non-common-law procedure, which had their own distinct appellate mechanisms.
Neither edition elaborates on the writ's history, its procedural requirements, or the grounds on which a judgment could be challenged. The entries are notably thin — acknowledgment of existence rather than substantive exposition. Researchers seeking procedural detail must look beyond Black's to English practice treatises, particularly those in the Archbold line, and to Blackstone's Commentaries, which addresses the broader structure of common law appellate remedies.
What the historical dictionaries do not say is as significant as what they do: neither edition explains the writ's relationship to the broader appellate reform movement of the nineteenth century, nor do they note when or whether it was formally abolished. This silence is itself a research signal — by the time these editions were published, the writ was a relic being noted for completeness rather than practical guidance.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The writ of false judgment was an English common law instrument with negligible independent development in American jurisdictions. American courts largely bypassed it in favor of statutory appellate structures, and it does not appear as a functioning remedy in modern American practice in any jurisdiction. Researchers working in early American materials from the colonial or early republic period may encounter references to it, but should not assume American courts applied English procedural rules for this writ consistently or at all.
---