Legal Definitions - super statuto de articulis cleri

The term super statuto de articulis cleri refers to a historical legal remedy in English law.

Historically, this was a specific type of legal order, known as a "writ," that an individual could obtain to challenge a sheriff who had unlawfully seized their property. In this context, "unlawfully distraining goods" means that the sheriff took possession of someone's belongings without proper legal justification, beyond the scope of their authority, or in an excessive manner.

Here are some examples illustrating how this writ would have been applied:

• Example 1: Excessive Seizure of Property
  Imagine a medieval farmer who owed a small sum of money. A sheriff, acting on a legitimate debt order, might have been authorized to seize a few chickens or a cart to cover the debt. However, if the sheriff instead seized the farmer's entire herd of cattle, all his farming tools, and his winter grain stores—far exceeding the value of the debt—this would constitute an unlawful distraint. The farmer could then have sought a super statuto de articulis cleri to challenge the sheriff's excessive and illegal seizure, aiming to recover the disproportionately taken property.

• Example 2: Seizure from the Wrong Person
  Consider a situation where a court ordered a sheriff to seize property from a specific merchant who had defaulted on a loan. If the sheriff, through error or negligence, went to the neighboring shop belonging to a different, innocent merchant and seized their valuable textiles, this would be an unlawful distraint. The innocent merchant, whose goods were taken without any legal basis against them, would have used a super statuto de articulis cleri to compel the sheriff to return their property and rectify the mistake.

• Example 3: Seizure Without Proper Authority
  Suppose a powerful local lord had a personal grievance against a miller and, without any formal court judgment or legal process, pressured the sheriff to seize the miller's grinding stones and sacks of flour. If the sheriff complied with this demand, acting solely on the lord's influence rather than a legitimate legal warrant, this would be an unlawful distraint. The miller could have invoked a super statuto de articulis cleri to challenge the sheriff's actions, asserting that the seizure lacked proper legal authority and was an abuse of power.