Next thing you know, detinue and mayhem will reappear along with wigs and gowns. The New Mexico Supreme Court created a genuinely new writ in the last couple of years, a rare event. Rather than give it a new name, though, they dug into legal history and called it a writ of error, which it ISN'T but now, I guess, it IS. In my own practice, the writ coram nobis has resurfaced in criminal law which is odd because it was specifically abolished by our rules of civil procedure.
In the old common law, in order to cause the Court to use the power of the state to enforce your rights, it was necessary to plead for a very specific remedy, such as replevin or detinue or trover. A writ of replevin was (and is) an order to the sheriff to sieze personalty and restore it to the plaintiff; trover was like conversion, IIRC, it resulted in a money judgment for the value of the wrongfully held personalty and detinue (I am really stretching my memory here) gave the defendant the choice of returning the item or paying for it. Corum nobis was a writ directed by the Court to ITSELF granting the plaintiff relief from the Court's own judgment. A writ of error was the common law device for seeking a direct appeal; its equitable equivalent was the notice of appeal. When law and equity merged (which they really didn't) the writ of error disappeared in favor of the notice of appeal for all direct appeals (except those governed by certiorari)... Writ practice is extremely archaic. I'd say that very few lawyers of my acquaintence really understand the writ process at a systemic level, as opposed to knowing how to use a particular writ or other, such as habeas corpus or restitution. I'd like to teach a class in it someday or at least write a handbook. All writs have certain things in common and follow certain common procedures. Are they archaic? Yes and no. The law is forever changing but the issues it deals with stay very much the same. Sometimes a statutory or rule based device that was designed to replace a common law writ isn't the exact equivalent. Then some situation arises where the writ will answer but the new device will not. Sooo the writ reappears!
I recall from a decade or so someone telling me that there was a law against trespass to cattle . We made fun of him, but however he found some odd Texas law that made it illegal to make fun of people's cows and a newspaper called it 'Trespass to Cattle' (it was a legal publication and I must assume used in jest). It really is against the law to disparage another's livestock in Texas.
Uncle, You're right. It IS coram. Anyway, the reappearance of the writ is a matter of some concern here. As to disparaging beef, talk to Oprah!
Isn't anywhere a good place for bowling? As the comedian, Gallagher, noted long ago, bowling is an excuse to drink. And drinking is an excuse for bowling....
