Legal Definitions - quare impedit

Quare impedit is a historical legal term originating from ecclesiastical law, meaning "why he hinders" in Latin. It refers to a specific type of legal action or writ used to protect and enforce the right of a patron to appoint a suitable person to a vacant church position, known as a benefice. If someone, such as a bishop or another claimant, obstructed the patron's ability to make their rightful appointment, the patron could initiate a quare impedit action to compel the obstructer to allow the appointment or explain their legal justification for the hindrance.

Here are some examples illustrating how quare impedit would have applied historically:

• Example 1: Lord vs. Bishop

  A powerful local lord held the ancient right to appoint the new rector for the village church. When the current rector died, leaving the position vacant, the lord selected a qualified candidate and presented him to the bishop for installation. However, the bishop of the diocese, perhaps preferring a different individual or disputing the lord's authority, refused to install the lord's chosen candidate.

  In this scenario, the lord, as the patron, had the right to present a person to the vacant benefice (the rectorship). The bishop's refusal constituted a hindrance to the lord's exercise of this right. The lord would initiate a quare impedit action to challenge the bishop's obstruction and enforce his right to appoint his chosen candidate.

• Example 2: Competing Patronage Claims

  Two prominent noble families, the Blackwoods and the Rivers, both claimed the ancient right of patronage over the same valuable parish church. When the incumbent vicar passed away, both families presented their own chosen candidate to the bishop. The bishop, unsure who the true patron was and unwilling to risk installing the wrong person, refused to install either candidate until the matter of rightful patronage was resolved.

  Here, the benefice (vicarage) was vacant, and each family believed they were the legitimate patron with the right to present a candidate. The bishop's refusal to install *either* candidate, due to conflicting claims, effectively hindered the true patron from exercising their right. The family with the legitimate claim would bring a quare impedit action against the other claimant and the bishop to establish their right and compel the installation of their candidate.

• Example 3: Usurpation by a Neighbor

  Lady Isabella held the patronage rights for a small, but historically significant, chapel on her estate. Upon the death of the chaplain, a neighboring baron, Lord Alaric, mistakenly believed he had inherited the patronage rights through a distant family connection and attempted to appoint his own relative to the vacant chapel. Lady Isabella had already selected her preferred candidate and was preparing for the appointment.

  Lady Isabella was the rightful patron, and the chapel's chaplaincy was a vacant benefice. Lord Alaric's attempt to appoint his own candidate was an act of usurpation that hindered Lady Isabella from exercising her legitimate right. She would use a quare impedit action to assert her patronage rights and prevent Lord Alaric's interference, ensuring her chosen candidate could be installed.