Definition
A writ of inquiry is a common-law procedural mechanism issued after a plaintiff obtains an interlocutory judgment by default or on demurrer in an action for unliquidated damages — that is, damages whose amount cannot be determined by simple calculation. Because the court's default judgment establishes liability but leaves the dollar amount unresolved, the writ directs the sheriff to convene a jury and conduct an inquiry into the extent of the plaintiff's loss. The jury's findings (the "inquisition") are returned to the court, which then enters a final judgment for the assessed amount.
The writ thus serves as a bridge between an interlocutory liability finding and a final, enforceable money judgment. It was not available where damages were liquidated — that is, where the sum due was fixed by agreement, instrument, or straightforward calculation — because in those cases no jury assessment was needed.
---
Common Confusion
A writ of inquiry is sometimes loosely conflated with an inquest or inquisition. These terms describe the proceeding and its output, not the instrument that initiates it. The writ is the court's directive to the sheriff; the inquisition is the jury's formal finding returned in response. Bouvier's cross-reference to INQUISITION and INQUEST reflects this procedural chain rather than treating the terms as interchangeable. Researchers encountering "inquisition" in early common-law records should check whether a writ of inquiry was the originating instrument.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is a historical procedural term. The writ of inquiry belongs to the classical common-law system of writs and was part of the machinery of English practice that American courts inherited and then progressively dismantled. Researchers working in pre-merger (pre-1938 federal rules) American court records or in English common-law materials will encounter it; researchers working in modern civil practice almost certainly will not.
Several navigational points matter:
First, the writ presupposes a system in which default judgment and final judgment were distinct events requiring separate process. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and their state equivalents, courts assess unliquidated damages in default proceedings without a separate writ or sheriff's jury — often by judicial hearing or affidavit. What the writ of inquiry once accomplished procedurally is now absorbed into a single default judgment process.
Second, the role of the sheriff is distinctive and easy to misread. Unlike most common-law writs directed to a judicial officer, the writ of inquiry ran to the sheriff, who effectively presided over the damages inquiry with a jury in tow. This quasi-judicial function of the sheriff appears arcane in modern context but was standard in English and early American practice. Records from this process — the return, the inquisition, the panel — may appear in sheriff's records rather than court dockets.
Third, the liquidated/unliquidated distinction is the key to when this writ issued. If damages were fixed or ascertainable by calculation (a debt on a promissory note, for example), no writ of inquiry was needed or proper. The writ was reserved for tort-type damages — personal injury, property damage, defamation — where a jury's evaluative judgment was required. Understanding this distinction helps researchers correctly categorize the underlying action from the procedural record alone.
Fourth, the writ appears in Connecticut case law (see Black's 2nd ed.) and in English equity and common-law records well into the nineteenth century. American jurisdictions varied in how long they retained the form before absorbing its function into simplified procedures.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical sources are consistent in their core description but vary in depth. Black's first and second editions give the clearest functional statement: a post-default writ for unliquidated claims, directed to the sheriff with a jury, for damage assessment. Rapalje & Lawrence adds the most procedurally useful detail — noting that the inquiry is "executed by the sheriff or under-sheriff and a jury of twelve, much in the same manner as an ordinary trial," and that final judgment follows the filed inquisition. This clarifies that the proceeding had genuine trial-like structure, not merely a ministerial calculation.
Bouvier's and Burrill's treat the term as a cross-reference rather than a standalone entry, pointing to INQUISITION and INQUIRY respectively. This is instructive: it signals that practitioners of the era would have navigated these concepts through the output (the inquisition) rather than the writ itself. Researchers using Bouvier's should follow those cross-references for the fuller procedural picture.
Wiktionary's definition tracks Black's closely but adds the useful qualifier "where they cannot readily be ascertained by mere calculation" — capturing the liquidated/unliquidated distinction in plain terms.
None of the historical sources address the transition away from the writ in American practice or its displacement by modern rules. For that arc, researchers must look beyond the dictionary shelf to procedural history sources and the commentary surrounding the 1938 adoption of the Federal Rules.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The writ of inquiry was a common-law form and followed the general reception of English common law in American states. Retention and abolition varied by jurisdiction, with some states preserving sheriff's jury practice longer than others. English practice formally retained elements of the form into the nineteenth century. Researchers should not assume uniform timing of abolition across American jurisdictions.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
No Law Mind Encyclopedia entry addresses the writ of inquiry directly. For broader context on writ practice and extraordinary writs in the common-law tradition, see: Coram Nobis and Other Extraordinary Writs (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia, criminal_240).
---