practice. The model of an instrument or legal-proceeding, containing the substance and the principal terms, to be used in accordance with the laws; or, it is the act of pursuing, in legal proceedings, and in the construction of legal instruments, the order required by law. Form is usually put in contradistinction to substance. For example, by the operation of the statute of 27 Eliz. c. 5, s. 1, all merely formal defects in pleading, except in dilatory pleas, are aided on general demurrer. 2. The difference between matter of form, and matter of substance, in general, under this statute, as laid down by Lord Hobart, is, that that without which the right doth sufficiently appear to the court, is form; but that any defect by reason whereof the right appears not, is a defect in substance. Hob. 233. 3. A distinction somewhat more definite, is, that if the matter pleaded be in itself insufficient, without reference to the manner of pleading it, the defect is substantial; but that if the fault is in the manner of alleging it, the defect is formal. Dougl. 683. For example, the omission of a consideration in a declaration in assumpsit; or of the performance of a condition precedent, when such condition exists; of a conversion of property of the plaintiff, in trover; of knowledge in the defendant, in an action for mischief done by his dog of malice, in action for malicious prosecution, and the like, are all defects in substance. On the other hand, duplicity; a negative pregnant; argumentative pleading; a special plea, amounting to the general issue; omission of a day, when time is immaterial; of a place, in transitory actions, and the like, are only faults in form. 4. At the same time that fastidious objections against trifling errors of form, arising from mere clerical mistakes, are not encouraged or sanctioned by the courts, it has been justly observed, that infinite mischief has been produced by the facility of the courts in overlooking matters of form; it encourages carelessness, and places ignorance too much upon a footing with knowledge amongst those who practice the drawing of pleadings.
Law Dictionary – Alternative Legal Definition
1. A model or skeleton of an instrument to “be used in a judicial proceeding, containing the principal necessary matters, the proper technical terms or phrases, and whatever else is necessary to make it formally correct, arranged in proper and methodical order, and capable of being adapted to the circumstances of the specific case.
2. As distinguished from “substance.” “form” means the legal or technical manner or order to be observed in legal instruments or juridical proceedings, or in the construction of legal documents or processes.
The distinction between “form” and “substance” is often important in reference to the validity or amendment of pleadines. If the matter of the plea is bad or insufficient, irrespective of the manner of setting it forth, the defect is one of substance. If the matter of the plea is good and sufficient, but is inartificially or defectively pleaded, the defect is one of form. Pierson v. Insurance Co., 7 Houst (Del.) 307, 31 Atl. 966. Common form, Solemn form. See PROBATE. Form of the statute. The words, language, or frame of a statute, and hence the inhibition or command which it may contain; used in the phrase (in criminal pleading) “against the form of the statute in that case made and provided. Forms of notion. The general designation of the various species or kinds of personal actions known to the common law, such as trover, trespass debt, assumpsit. etc. These differ in their pleadings and evidence, as well as in the circumstances to which they are respectively applicable. Truax v. Parvis, 7 Houst (Del.) 330, 32 Atl. 227. Matter of form. In pleadings, indictments, conveyances, etc., matter of form (as distinguished from matter of substance) is all that relates to the mode, form, or style of expressing the facts involved, the choice or arrangement of words, and other such particulars, without affecting the substantial validity or sufficiency of the instrument or without going to the merits. Railway Co. v. Kurtz, 10 Ind. App. 60. 37 N. R. 303; Meath v. Mississippi Levee Com’re, 109 TJ. S. 268, 3 Sup. Ct. 284, 27 L. Ed. 930; State v. Amidon, 58 Vt 524, 2 Atl. 154.