Definition
ARRESTER has two distinct legal meanings that rarely appear together in the same jurisdiction.
1. (Scots law) A creditor who has sued out and obtained an arrestment — a form of diligence (enforcement process) by which a debtor's goods, funds, or movable obligations held by a third party are frozen or attached for the creditor's benefit. The arrester is the party in whose favor the arrestment runs, not the officer executing it.
2. (General common-law usage, rare) One who performs an arrest — that is, the person, officer, or private individual who physically detains another under legal authority. This sense is grammatically straightforward but appears infrequently in legal texts, which tend to prefer "arresting officer," "officer," or simply the verb form.
The Scots law meaning is the operative legal term of art. The common-law meaning adds nothing that the ordinary word "arrest" does not already convey and is seldom encountered as a standalone legal definition in English-law sources.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): One who places another under arrest; also, a device that stops or prevents something, such as a spark arrester or railway buffer.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): One who arrests; also, the person at whose suit an arrestment is made.
Editorial note: Webster's 1913 captures both senses cleanly, which is itself instructive: the mechanical/device meaning (spark arrester, wire arrester) is entirely absent from legal usage and can be ignored by legal researchers. The legal gap lies not between common and legal English but between Scots law and general common law — the word carries a precise procedural identity in Scots practice (the creditor who initiates arrestment) that general English-law usage does not replicate.
---
Common Confusion
ARRESTER vs. ARRESTEE: These are not synonyms and should not be conflated. The arrester (in common-law usage) is the one doing the arresting; the arrestee is the person being arrested. In Scots law, the arrester is the creditor, not the enforcement officer — a further layer of potential confusion when reading historical Scottish sources alongside English or American materials.
ARRESTER vs. ARRESTMENT: Arrester names the party; arrestment names the process. Historical dictionary sources treat these as paired terms. Researchers who encounter one should look up the other.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The primary research value of this term is jurisdictional: ARRESTER as a term of art belongs to Scots law, and its meaning there is procedurally specific. Researchers working in Scottish legal history, comparative law, or early American sources that borrowed from Scots practice will encounter arrester as a creditor-party label, not as a description of law enforcement conduct.
In American and English legal sources, the term almost never appears as a formal designation. If you encounter ARRESTER in an American case or treatise, look first at whether the author is drawing on Scots or civil-law analogies before assuming the ordinary meaning.
The historical dictionaries are consistent on this point — every entry defines arrester through the Scots law lens, citing Erskine's Institutes or Forbes' Institutes as authority. This uniform sourcing signals that American legal dictionary compilers were essentially transplanting a Scots definition wholesale rather than drawing on domestic practice. Researchers should treat these entries as windows into Scots legal procedure, not as guides to American or English arrest law.
For researchers using the Law Mind corpus on arrest procedure generally, ARRESTER in the Scots sense will surface in older materials on debt enforcement and diligence. The term is unlikely to appear in modern American criminal procedure contexts, where it has no technical standing.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The five source dictionaries are in near-complete agreement: all define arrester exclusively (or primarily) through the Scots law sense, and all cite either Erskine's Institutes (3.6.1) or Forbes' Institutes as their authority. Burrill adds a reference to Kames' Equity, providing mild additional depth. Rapalje & Lawrence is the most concise, characterizing the arrester simply as the party "in whose behalf a process of arrestment was sued out" — a formulation that usefully captures the procedural posture without elaboration.
None of the historical dictionaries develop the common-law "one who arrests" meaning in any substantive way, treating it as too obvious to require definition. This is consistent with Webster's 1913, which lists both meanings briefly but without extended treatment. The historical record therefore offers researchers strong, consistent authority for the Scots law meaning and essentially no technical guidance on arrester as a common-law term. What the historical sources miss is any discussion of how Scots arrestment compares structurally to attachment or garnishment in English and American practice — a comparison that would help researchers bridge between legal systems.
---
Jurisdictional Note
ARRESTER as a term of art is operative in Scots law and has no equivalent technical standing in English or American common law. Modern Scottish legal practice retains the term in the context of diligence proceedings. Researchers working across jurisdictions should not assume that a reference to "the arrester" in a Scots-law document means anything resembling an arresting officer in an American criminal procedure context.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Arrest — Probable Cause, Warrants, and Procedure (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia) — for the general law of arrest, from which ARRESTER in the common-law sense derives.
Resisting Arrest and Obstruction of Law Enforcement (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia) — relevant when arrester is used in its general sense to identify who is performing the arrest, which bears on whether resistance is legally justified.
---