Misericordia
Defined in 7 dictionaries — Ballentine's (1916), Black's (1910), Black's (1891), Anderson (1889), Stimson (1881), Abbott (1879), Bouvier (1839)
Ballentine's Law Dictionary
James A. Ballentine · 1916
Black's Law Dictionary
Henry Campbell Black, M.A. · 1910
Lat. Mercy; a flne or amerciament; an arbitrary or discretionary amercement
— Misericordia communis. In old English law. A fine set on a whole county or hundred.
A Dictionary of Law
Henry Campbell Black · 1891
Mercy; a fine or amerciament; an arbitrary or discretionary amercement.
A Dictionary of Law
William C. Anderson · 1889
See Mercy, 1.
Glossary of Technical Terms, Phrases, and Maxims of the Common Law
Frederic Jesup Stimson · 1881
I. Mercy; an amerciament.
Dictionary of Terms and Phrases Used in American or English Jurisprudence
Benjamin Vaughan Abbott · 1879
Mercy; an amercement; particularly, a discretionary amercement. To be in mercy is to be liable to such a fine as the judge in his discretion may impose. The word was commonly used in early English law to signify a discretionary mulct or amerciament imposed upon a person for an offence. Thus, when the plaintiff or defendant in an action was amerced, the entry was always idea in misericordia, and it was so called because the fine was but small (and therefore merciful), in proportion to the offence; and, if a man was outrageously amerced in a court not of record (as in a court-baron, for instance), there was a writ called moderate misericordia, to be directed to the lord or his bailiff, commanding them that they take moderate amerciar ments, in just proportion to the offence of the party to be amerced. When a fine was amerced on a whole county, instead of an individual, it was then termed misericordia communis. Termes de la Ley.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States
John Bouvier · 1839
mercy. An arbitrary or discretionary amercement. To be in mercy, is to be liable to such punishmment as the ’ Judge may in his discretion inflict. 'MISFEASANCE, torts, contracts, is the performance of an act which might lawfully be done, in an improper manner, by which another person receives an injury. It differs from malfeasance, (q. v.) or nonfeasance, (q- v.) Vide generally, 2 Vin. Ab. 35; 2 Kent, Com. 443; Doct. Pl. 62; Story, Bail. § 9. It scems to be settled that there is a distinction between misfeasance and nonfeasance in the case of mandates. In cases of nonfeasance, the mandatory is not generally liable, because his undertaking being gratuitous, there is no consideration to support it, but in cases of misfeasance, the common law gives a remedy for the injury done, and to the extent of that injury. 5 T. R. 143; 4 John. R. 84; Story, Bailm. § 165; 2 Ld. Raym. 909, 919, 920; 2 Johns. Cas. 92; Doct. & Stu. 210; 1 Esp. R. 74.