Definition
A historical writ or legal process by which goods and chattels were seized by authorized court officers — known as attachiators or bailiffs — and held as security to compel a defendant's appearance or to answer a claim for personal estate or debt. The seizure functioned as a form of distress: the property was not immediately forfeited but detained as a pledge ensuring the defendant's compliance with the proceeding. The term is Latin, translating roughly to "attachment of goods," and belongs to the older vocabulary of common law procedure.
---
Common Confusion
Attachiamenta bonorum should not be confused with the broader modern remedy of ATTACHMENT or with DISTRESS as it operates in landlord-tenant law. Though all three involve seizure or detention of property, they differ in procedural foundation, purpose, and governing law. Attachiamenta bonorum was a writ-era process confined to early English common law. Modern attachment is a statutory remedy aimed at securing a future judgment. Distress for rent is a self-help or court-supervised remedy tied specifically to landlord-tenant obligations. Using these terms interchangeably in historical research will produce anachronistic readings of the sources.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is purely historical. Researchers will encounter it almost exclusively in medieval and early modern English legal records, Year Books, and treatises on common law procedure. It does not survive as an operative concept in modern Anglo-American law, having been absorbed and eventually displaced by the general law of attachment and execution as civil procedure modernized.
The key research trap is treating attachiamenta bonorum as equivalent to the modern remedy of attachment. The modern attachment is a creature of statute and varies significantly by jurisdiction. Attachiamenta bonorum, by contrast, was a writ-based process tied to the pre-reform common law system, with its own procedural officers (the attachiators), its own defined scope (personal estate and debt), and its character as security rather than satisfaction of a judgment.
Researchers working in historical English legal records — particularly those involving manor courts, early common law pleading, or pre-Judicature Act procedure — should note that the term signals a preliminary seizure stage, not a final enforcement step. The goods were held; they were not transferred. Understanding this distinction matters when mapping a historical dispute's procedural posture.
Because the term appears rarely and in constrained contexts, cross-referencing within the Law Mind corpus to entries on ATTACHMENT, DISTRESS, and GARNISHMENT will help situate the concept within the broader procedural family it belongs to.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary provides the only available definition in the source set, describing attachiamenta bonorum as a distress on goods and chattels taken by "legal attachiators or bailiffs" as security to answer an action for personal estate or debt. This account is consistent with the general character of attachment remedies in early English procedure: the function was coercive and precautionary, not punitive or immediately satisfying.
Black's definition is spare, and it leaves important context implicit. It does not distinguish between the various forms of attachment that existed in early English law, nor does it address the relationship between this process and the broader law of distress, which had its own extensive doctrinal history in real property and landlord-tenant contexts. Researchers relying solely on Black's will have a structurally accurate but thin account of the term's procedural role.
No entry for this term appears in standard modern legal dictionaries, which reflects its status as obsolete Latin legal terminology rather than live doctrine. Its presence in historical sources is the primary reason a researcher would need to consult it.
---