PROCEDURE (OF. procedure. Fr. procedure, from Lat. procedere. to go forward, from pro, be fore, for ± ceders, to go). In law, the successive step, or proceedings in the initiation and conduct of a judicial proceeding, and the rules of law governing them. In its broadest sense the term includes evidence and pleading. In a narrower sense the term is used as synonymous with prac tice, which embrace: the rules governing the form and manner of conducting the various steps in a legal proceeding other than the rules of evidence (q.v.) and the rules of pleading (q.v.).
The judicial proceeding may lie directed toward the person. when it is said to he in personam ; or it may be directed toward the property, when it is said to be in rein. See IN PERSONAM; IN REM: LAW.
In English jurisprudence three distinct systems of procedure corresponding and adapted to dis tinct systems of jurisprudence were developed respectively by the courts of common law, the courts of chancery, and the courts of admiralty. While necessarily having ninny elements in com mon, these systems for the most part differ widely from each other, and their characteristic: can be best understAd by treating each separately.
Com mos-LAw PROcEDIRE. The common-law procedure is much older than the procedure in either equity or admiralty as practiced by the English courts, the curia regis which was the forerunner of the English courts of Exchequer. Common Pleas, and King's Bench, in which the common-law procedure was developed, having been established during the reign of Henry I. ( 1 100-1 1 35). The common-law procedure was early marked by extreme formality, and ultimate ly it became neccA;sary to simplify the system by means of legislation, which has given to us the various forms of reformed common-law procedure in modern use and in many States of the United States. See CODE; LAW; EQUITY.
The first step in an action at common law was the issuing of the original writ on application of the plaintiff, which commanded the sheriff to summon the defendant to give to the plaintiff the relief demanded by him or to appear before the next term of court and show cause why such relief should not be granted. The effect of the original writ was twofold. It gave the court jurisdiction over the subject-matter by authoriz ing it to proceed with all subsequent steps in the litigation. It also gave the court jurisdiction over the person of the defendant when the sheriff had executed the writ by serving it personally upon him. It could then issue its process or
mandate compelling time attendance of the parties and witnesses, direct the filing of pleadings. sum mon and impanel a jury, and after trial and ver dict enter judgment for the successful party and issue its execution or other mandate to the sheriff for the purpose of satisfying the judgment. His torically the original writ is also important, as from it the action took its form, since the plain tiff's pleading was required to conform to the allegations and demand for relief contained in the original writ. See FORMS OF ACTION.
The original writ having been issued and served upon the defendant, it then became his duty to appear in the proceeding and plead, and if neces sary the court could compel his appearance by issuance of its process (q.v.) known as a judicial writ as distinguished from the original writ.
The method of pleading and of trying the issues raised by the pleadings is fully considered under such titles as PLEADING; EVIDENCE; TRIAL; Juuv; etc., to which reference should be made in connection with this subject.
the course of the proceeding and after verdict, the parties to the action might apply to the court for various forms of relief incidental to the proper conduct of the proceeding. Thus upon application the court might use the sub poena to command the attendance of witnesses, and punish for contempt ; and after verdict the un successful party might make motions for a di rection of the court in effect reversing or setting aside the verdict of the jury. Thus the unsuc cessful party might move: (a) for a new trial on the ground that the judge had not properly instructed the jury or that he had admitted or excluded evidence contrary to law or because of newly discovered evidence; or (b) he might move in arrest of judgment on the ground that some error on the face of the record vitiated all the proceedings; or (e) if the verdict was for the defendant, the plaintiff might move for judgment 11011 obstantc verdieto—without regard to the verdict—on the ground that he was entitled to judgment on the face of the pleadings: or (d) for a repleader, i.e. allowing the parties to plead anew because they had framed issues upon some immaterial matter; or (e) for a venire fucias de novo, that is, a judicial writ summoning a new jury because the jury at the trial in the action was guilty of some misconduct invalidating its verdict.