98 
Indiana University Studies 
there was no writ there was no remedy. The substantive law 
of the period was really the result of writs, or remedies, rather 
than their cause. The great common law remedy always has 
been damages. The writs in this period which gave the right 
to damages were debt, covenant, deceit, trespass, and ac- 
count — all continuing from the Archaic Period ; case available 
in the fifteenth century ; and trover, trespass on the case, and 
assumpsit available in the sixteenth century. The latter were 
specialized forms of case. Trover was a specialized form of 
case in the nature of detinue, devised for the purpose of giving 
damages for the conversion of chattels, at first where the 
defendant had found them but soon in all cases. Trespass on 
the case was an action on the case in the nature of trespass, 
which gave a right to damages for negligent omissions and 
for injuries caused by independent agents of harm, inanimate 
things, etc. Special assumpsit was an action on the case 
in the nature of deceit for the recovery of damages for breach 
of an express promise. General assumpsit was an action on 
the case in the nature of debt for the recovery of a definite, 
liquidated amount of money. It was a sort of residual action 
in the realm of contracts. Case was the corresponding 
residual action in the realm of torts. The various actions on 
the case were the creation of the clerks in chancery acting 
under a statute of Parliament enacted in 1289, authorizing 
them to issue writs in consimili casu with old writs. It is not 
clear why this statute was passed, but one explanation is that 
it was to enable the common law courts to compete better 
with the court of chancery. 
The ordinary common law writs of the Strict Period which 
gave other remedies than damages were detinue, replevin, 
and ejectment. These were all restorative remedies, the first 
two for chattels, and the last for land. Replevin originally 
lay only against one who had made a wrongful distress and 
was holding the goods distrained to compel the payment of 
a debt. At first if the defendant set up ownership, the re- 
plevin had to be dismissed and the plaintiff had to resort to 
the appeal of larceny or trespass. In Edward Ill's reign it 
was held that this claim had to be made before the sheriff 
had taken the goods. A little later the plaintiff was able to 
recover the goods in replevin in spite of defendant’s claim. 
Still later replevin became concurrent with trespass, but per- 
