Definition
A writ of mainprize was a common law writ directed to the sheriff commanding him to take sureties — known as mainpernors — for a prisoner's appearance and to release the prisoner from custody. It served as a pre-trial release mechanism in English law, operating in two distinct situations: (1) generally, when a person was imprisoned for a bailable offense and bail had been refused by the lower authority; and (2) specially, when the offense or cause of commitment was not properly bailable below, meaning the lower court or officer lacked authority to admit bail, and the superior court stepped in to grant it.
The writ is closely associated with, but distinguishable from, the writ of habeas corpus. Where habeas corpus commanded that a prisoner's body be brought before the court so the court could examine the legality of detention, mainprize operated more directly: it commanded the sheriff to release the prisoner into the custody of sureties without necessarily requiring the prisoner's physical production before the court.
---
Common Language
The term "mainprize" has no meaningful presence in modern everyday English. It is archaic legal terminology derived from Anglo-Norman legal practice. Webster's 1913 defines mainprize (also "mainprise") as the act of procuring the release of a prisoner by becoming surety for his appearance at a day named, or the writ commanding a sheriff to take such sureties and release the prisoner. Wiktionary treats the term as a historical legal term with essentially the same meaning.
The gap here is one of register rather than meaning: modern speakers encountering "mainprize" in historical sources may confuse it with bail or bond as those concepts are understood today. The distinction matters: mainpernors, unlike bail, were not forfeiting a sum of money as security — they stood as personal sureties responsible for producing the prisoner, a different kind of accountability rooted in personal pledge rather than financial guarantee.
---
Common Confusion
WRIT OF MAINPRIZE vs. BAIL: These are related but not identical mechanisms. Bail, in its modern and historical senses, typically involves a financial pledge forfeited upon non-appearance. Mainprize rested on the personal undertaking of mainpernors — sureties who pledged themselves for the prisoner's appearance. The mainpernor could not surrender the prisoner mid-term to escape liability, whereas a bail bondsman historically could. Black's 1st and 2nd editions preserve this distinction.
WRIT OF MAINPRIZE vs. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS: Both writs addressed unlawful or excessive detention. Habeas corpus commanded the jailor to produce the prisoner before the court to examine the legality of detention. Mainprize commanded the sheriff to take sureties and release the prisoner — it was a release mechanism, not primarily an inquiry mechanism. In practice, habeas corpus largely absorbed and displaced the function of mainprize as English and American law developed.
WRIT OF MAINPRIZE vs. WRIT DE HOMINE REPLEGIANDO: The writ de homine replegiando similarly directed release of a prisoner on sureties, but operated somewhat differently in scope and procedure. Researchers encountering one term in historical sources should check whether the other appears in adjacent materials.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is a historical evolution term. Researchers will encounter the writ of mainprize almost exclusively in pre-19th century English sources and in American sources from the colonial and early national periods. It had effectively fallen into disuse by the time American bail law matured, and modern researchers are unlikely to find it in any living procedural context.
Several navigational traps deserve attention:
First, spelling variation is significant. Historical sources render this term as "mainprize," "mainprise," "maynprise," and occasionally "mainprize" — a researcher searching a corpus with a single spelling will miss hits under the variants.
Second, the term appears frequently in discussions of the writ de homine replegiando and in Blackstone commentary. Because Blackstone's Commentaries (Book 3) is a foundation text cited in both editions of Black's, researchers tracing the authority chain should go directly to that source rather than relying solely on the dictionary synthesis.
Third, the writ matters historiographically in constitutional law research. Arguments about the scope of the Suspension Clause and the original meaning of habeas corpus sometimes canvas the full family of liberty writs available at common law — including mainprize, de homine replegiando, and certiorari — to establish what the Framers understood as alternatives to habeas. Researchers working on Suspension Clause originalism or the historical scope of habeas should treat mainprize as a necessary node in that analysis, not a dead end.
Fourth, American state practice varied. Some early American jurisdictions retained mainprize by statute or common law reception. Researchers working in colonial or early republic records should not assume the writ was purely English.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The two Black's editions (1st and 2nd) are in near-complete agreement on this term, with only minor typographical differences. Both trace the writ's authority directly to Blackstone's Commentaries, Book 3, page 128. The definition in both editions is spare — a structural description of the writ's command and its two operational modes — without elaboration on the mainpernor relationship, the history of the writ's displacement by habeas corpus, or the distinction from bail.
What the historical dictionaries miss: neither edition explains the personal (as opposed to financial) nature of the mainpernor's obligation, nor do they address the writ's relationship to the broader family of liberty writs at common law. Researchers relying on Black's alone will have an accurate but thin account. For substantive depth, Blackstone himself and treatise-era commentary (such as Hale's Historia Placitorum Coronae) are the appropriate next steps. Neither Black's edition notes the writ's obsolescence or its absorption by habeas corpus practice — a significant omission for any researcher trying to understand why the term disappears from later sources.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The writ of mainprize was a creature of English common law and never achieved independent statutory footing in American federal law. Some early American states may have recognized it through common law reception statutes, but it was functionally superseded by habeas corpus and statutory bail procedures well before the modern era. Researchers should not assume its availability in any current jurisdiction.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
constitutional_151: Habeas Corpus — The Great Writ and Suspension Clause (The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia)
criminal_240: Coram Nobis and Other Extraordinary Writs (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)
civpro_113: Extraordinary Writs and Habeas Corpus — 28 USC 2241-2255 (The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia)
---