Legal Definitions - sequatur sub suo periculo

Sequatur sub suo periculo is a historical legal term from Law Latin, meaning "let him follow at his peril." In historical English law, this was a type of writ (a formal written order from a court) issued in situations where a person repeatedly failed to appear in court or could not be found and served with legal documents, despite multiple attempts by the sheriff.

Specifically, after a court had issued several summonses or warrants (such as a warrant ad warrantizandum, which compelled someone to defend a title to land), and the sheriff consistently reported "nihil" (meaning they found "nothing" or could not locate the individual), this writ would be issued. It served as a final, stern directive, indicating that the court would proceed with the case, and the absent party would face the consequences of their non-appearance or failure to respond, without further delay or attempts to locate them. The phrase "at his peril" underscored the serious legal disadvantages and potential adverse judgments that would result from their continued absence.

• Example 1: Land Ownership Dispute

  Imagine a historical land dispute where Lord Ashworth claims a parcel of land from Sir Reginald. The court issues several summonses for Sir Reginald to appear and defend his title. The sheriff attempts three times to deliver these summonses to Sir Reginald's estate, but each time reports "nihil" – either Sir Reginald is away, or his servants claim he cannot be found. After these repeated failed attempts, the court issues a sequatur sub suo periculo.

  This illustrates the term because the court, having made diligent but unsuccessful efforts to notify Sir Reginald, is now declaring that the proceedings will continue. Sir Reginald, by failing to appear or be found, is now "at his peril," meaning he risks losing the land by default without ever presenting his defense.

• Example 2: Unpaid Debt Claim

  Consider a historical case where a merchant, Mr. Finch, is suing a debtor, Mr. Gable, for an unpaid loan. The court issues multiple summonses for Mr. Gable to appear and answer the claim. The sheriff attempts to serve Mr. Gable at his known residences and places of business, but consistently reports "nihil," indicating Mr. Gable cannot be located or served. After these persistent failures, the court issues a sequatur sub suo periculo.

  Here, the court has exhausted its means of compelling Mr. Gable's appearance. The sequatur sub suo periculo signifies that the court will now proceed with the debt claim, potentially issuing a judgment against Mr. Gable in his absence. Mr. Gable is "at his peril" because his failure to respond to the summonses means he forfeits the opportunity to defend himself against the debt claim, risking a judgment that could seize his assets.

• Example 3: Crucial Witness Absence

  In a historical criminal trial, a crucial witness, Lady Eleanor, is repeatedly summoned to provide testimony. The sheriff attempts to serve her with a subpoena multiple times, but she is either reported as being away on a long journey, or her household claims she is too ill to receive visitors, making it impossible to formally serve the writ ("nihil"). After these persistent failures to secure her attendance, the court might issue a sequatur sub suo periculo concerning her testimony.

  This example shows the principle applied to a witness. The court has tried diligently to secure Lady Eleanor's presence. The sequatur sub suo periculo would mean that the trial would proceed without her testimony, and any party relying on her evidence would be "at their peril," as they would lose the benefit of her testimony due to her non-appearance, and she might face contempt charges if her absence was deemed deliberate.