Definition
A writ of formedon is a common law real action used to recover land held under a fee tail (an estate in land limited to a person and the heirs of their body). It was the procedural vehicle by which a claimant could assert a right to land based on the original gift creating the entail, rather than on simple possession or freehold title. The writ takes its name from the Latin forma doni — "the form of the gift" — because the claimant's right derived entirely from the terms of the original grant creating the entailed estate.
The writ operated in three recognized forms depending on the claimant's relationship to the original gift:
1. Formedon in the Descender: Brought by issue in tail — a lineal heir claiming descent from the original donee — to recover the entailed land.
2. Formedon in the Remainder: Brought by a remainder-man — a person named in the original grant to take the land after the entail expired — when the tenant in tail died without issue.
3. Formedon in the Reverter: Brought by the original donor or the donor's heir to reclaim the land when the entailed line failed and no remainder was specified, causing the estate to revert to the donor's family.
All three forms shared the same foundational logic: the right to the land flowed from the forma doni, and the writ compelled a court to examine that original gift as the source of title.
---
Common Confusion
WRIT OF FORMEDON is frequently encountered alongside WRIT OF RIGHT and WRIT OF ENTRY in historical sources. These are distinct real actions. The writ of right was the most comprehensive real action, available to any claimant asserting freehold title, and was considered the highest common law remedy for land disputes. The writ of entry addressed wrongful disseisin or unlawful entry. The writ of formedon was narrower: it applied only where the claim derived specifically from a fee tail created by a gift or grant. Researchers encountering a historical land dispute must identify which writ was used before drawing conclusions about the nature of the claimant's interest.
Additionally, do not conflate the writ of formedon with a fine or common recovery. Both fines and common recoveries were procedural devices used to bar or defeat a fee tail — meaning they were mechanisms to extinguish the very claim the writ of formedon would assert.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
- Formedon in the Descender (issue in tail claiming by descent)
- Formedon in the Remainder (remainder-man claiming on expiration of the tail)
- Formedon in the Reverter (donor or donor's heir claiming on failure of the entailed line)
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is a term of almost exclusively historical significance. The writ of formedon belongs to the pre-modern English real actions system, which was substantially abolished in England by the Real Property Limitation Act of 1833 and the Common Law Procedure Act of 1852. In American jurisdictions, fee tail estates were largely abolished by statute in the colonial and early republic periods, eliminating the practical need for the writ. By the time American legal practice matured in the nineteenth century, the writ of formedon was already a relic.
Researchers working in the following areas will encounter this writ:
Colonial and early American land records: Title chains in jurisdictions that recognized fee tail before statutory abolition (Virginia, Maryland, and several New England states) may show formedon actions or references to the writ in title opinions.
English legal history and equity jurisdiction: Understanding the writ is prerequisite to understanding how equity courts developed parallel jurisdiction over entailed estates, and how the trust gradually displaced the fee tail as a mechanism for keeping land within a family.
Historical dictionary research: Black's first and second editions and Bouvier's all define the writ by reference to a companion entry (FORMEDON), which contains the doctrinal substance. Researchers using these sources should follow that cross-reference rather than treating the writ entry as self-contained.
Treatise literature: Coke on Littleton (Co. Litt. 236b, cited by Bouvier) and Blackstone's Commentaries are the primary treatise sources for the substantive doctrine underlying this writ. Any serious historical research into formedon actions should begin there.
The three-part subdivision of the writ (descender, remainder, reverter) matters in title research because each form implies a different relationship to the original grant. A formedon in the reverter, for example, signals a failure of the entire entailed line — a fact with consequences for how title passed and potentially for subsequent conveyances or tax records.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's first and second editions treat the writ identically, offering a one-sentence functional definition and immediately directing the reader to the companion entry FORMEDON. This cross-referential structure is consistent throughout both editions and reflects the practice of separating the procedural vehicle (the writ) from the substantive doctrine (the form of the gift and the fee tail).
Bouvier's Law Dictionary adds modestly to the Black's entries by explicitly framing the writ as lying where a party claims "specific recovery" of lands — language that usefully distinguishes formedon from actions for damages or other relief — and by citing Coke on Littleton directly. Bouvier also clarifies that the action arises "upon the determination of an estate in tail," which aligns with the formedon in the reverter and remainder forms. Bouvier's entry is slightly more substantive than Black's but still treats the writ as a pointer to broader doctrine rather than a self-contained definition.
None of the three dictionary sources address the writ's historical abolition, its displacement by ejectment as the standard real action, or the American statutory context. Researchers relying solely on these entries will not appreciate that the writ was already obsolete in practice when both editions of Black's were published.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Fee tail estates were abolished by statute in most American states, many as early as the colonial period or the first decades of statehood. Maine, Massachusetts, and several other states converted fee tail to fee simple by operation of statute. Where fee tail was never recognized or was immediately abolished, the writ of formedon had no practical application. Researchers should identify whether the relevant jurisdiction ever recognized fee tail before expecting to find formedon actions in local records.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
While no Law Mind Encyclopedia entry addresses the writ of formedon directly, researchers studying extraordinary writs and real actions history may find background orientation in:
- Coram Nobis and Other Extraordinary Writs (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia, criminal_240)
- Habeas Corpus — The Great Writ and Suspension Clause (The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia, constitutional_151)
These entries address the broader common law writ system and its survival into modern practice, providing useful context for understanding how and why most historical real actions (including formedon) were displaced.
---