Definition
A writ of arrestandis bonis ne dilapidentur is an old English common law writ directing the seizure and preservation of a defendant's goods or cattle pending litigation, where those goods are in danger of being wasted, consumed, or destroyed before judgment can be enforced. The writ's function was preventive: it authorized the taking of property not to satisfy a judgment already rendered, but to secure assets that might otherwise be dissipated before the court could act. The Latin phrase translates roughly as "for arresting goods lest they be squandered."
The writ operated as an early form of conservatory or provisional remedy, predating the more developed equitable doctrines of injunction and attachment that would eventually displace it.
---
Common Confusion
Arrestandis bonis ne dilapidentur is sometimes grouped loosely with writs of attachment or execution, but it belongs to neither category precisely. A writ of attachment typically secures jurisdiction over a defendant or their property at the outset of a suit. A writ of execution, such as the capias ad satisfaciendum, enforces a judgment already obtained. Arrestandis bonis ne dilapidentur occupied a distinct middle position: it was available during the pendency of an action, after proceedings had begun but before final judgment, specifically to prevent waste. Rapalje and Lawrence's entry reflects this distinction while noting the writ's connection to the broader taxonomy of arrest and seizure remedies.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in historical English common law sources and will be encountered most often in treatises, abridgments, and law dictionaries from the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries. Researchers should be aware of several navigational points:
First, the writ is archaic and had fallen into disuse well before modern procedural codes consolidated provisional remedies. A researcher encountering the term in a primary source should treat it as a marker of English common law practice prior to the fusion of law and equity and the rise of statutory attachment and injunctive relief.
Second, the source entry in Rapalje and Lawrence is fragmentary. The entry as preserved trails into a discussion of arrest on final process and the capias ad satisfaciendum, which are distinct remedies. This juxtaposition reflects the dictionary's organizational approach to writs beginning with "arrest" rather than a substantive connection between the writ and execution practice. Researchers should not infer that arrestandis bonis ne dilapidentur functioned as an execution remedy.
Third, Bouvier's Law Dictionary is identified as the underlying source in the Rapalje and Lawrence entry. Researchers seeking fuller treatment should consult Bouvier directly, where the writ is defined with reference to its pleading and procedural context.
Fourth, this writ has no direct American successor statute under that name. The functional purpose it served — preventing dissipation of assets during litigation — was absorbed into equity practice through injunctions against waste, and later into statutory prejudgment attachment and receivership procedures. When researching American cases involving preservation of assets pending judgment, do not search for this writ by name; search instead for attachment, injunction against waste, or receivership.
Fifth, variant spellings appear in older sources. The terminal word is sometimes rendered "dilapidentur," sometimes abbreviated or truncated in abridgments. The Rapalje and Lawrence entry itself appears to contain a transcription artifact in the headword form "NE DIS," which is a truncation of "ne dilapidentur." Researchers searching historical indexes should be alert to these variations.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje and Lawrence derive their account from Bouvier, as the entry explicitly acknowledges. Bouvier treated the writ as part of the class of mesne process — process issued during the pendency of a suit — directed at the preservation of property. The writ's availability turned on a showing that goods or cattle were at risk of waste or destruction before judgment.
The historical dictionaries uniformly treat this as an old and largely obsolete English writ by the time of their writing. None of the standard American legal dictionaries of the nineteenth century — Bouvier, Black, or Rapalje and Lawrence — indicate active American use. The writ's appearance in these works is primarily taxonomic, cataloging the English common law heritage from which American procedure developed.
What the historical sources do not address is how the functional gap left by this writ's obsolescence was filled — namely, through the expansion of equity's jurisdiction over waste and the statutory development of prejudgment remedies. Researchers interested in the doctrinal lineage should trace forward through treatises on equity jurisdiction and injunctions rather than through writ practice.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The writ was an English common law remedy and does not appear to have been adopted by name in American state or federal courts. Its functional equivalents in American practice are governed by state attachment statutes and equity rules varying considerably by jurisdiction.
---