Definition
Latin: "goods not to be removed." A writ addressed to the sheriff commanding that a judgment debtor not be permitted to remove or dispose of his goods while a writ of error is pending against the judgment. The writ functioned as a preservative measure — once a losing party brought a writ of error to challenge a judgment, the winning party could obtain this writ to prevent the debtor from dissipating assets in the interim, ensuring that if the judgment survived appellate review, something would remain to satisfy it.
Common Confusion
Researchers should not conflate bonis non amovendis with supersedeas. A supersedeas writ stayed execution of the judgment itself — it directed the sheriff to halt enforcement proceedings already underway or to refrain from executing the judgment. Bonis non amovendis was narrower and more specific: it directed the sheriff to prevent the judgment debtor from moving goods, without necessarily staying the judgment or its execution more broadly. In practice the two writs were often sought together or in sequence, and historical sources sometimes reference one in contexts that imply the other, but they are formally distinct instruments with different objects.
Why It Matters in Research
This is an obsolete English common law writ with no direct modern counterpart as a distinct procedural instrument. Researchers encountering it in historical sources — pleading records, sheriff's returns, year books, or treatises on error practice — should understand it as the functional predecessor of modern asset-freezing or injunctive relief pending appeal. It operated within the old writ of error system, which itself was abolished in England and substantially reformed or replaced in American federal and state practice during the nineteenth century.
The writ is almost exclusively a historical artifact. It will not appear in modern practice materials. Researchers working in pre-nineteenth-century English or colonial American records may encounter it in connection with error proceedings, sheriffs' dockets, or discussions of supersedeas practice. When tracing the development of appellate stays and injunctions against asset removal pending appeal, this writ is part of the genealogy, but the chain of succession runs through equity jurisdiction and modern civil procedure rather than through the survival of this specific writ form.
Note also the relationship to the writ of supersedeas: both arise in the context of a pending writ of error, but supersedeas stayed execution of the judgment directly, while bonis non amovendis targeted the debtor's goods specifically, directing the sheriff to prevent removal. The two could interact and overlap in practice, and historical sources do not always distinguish them cleanly.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries are in close agreement on this term, which is expected given its narrow and technical character. Black's (both editions) and Bouvier's reproduce essentially identical definitions, each citing Registrum Omnium Brevium (Reg. Orig.) as the foundational source. Rapalje & Lawrence tracks the same substance but frames it slightly differently — "directing the sheriff to prevent one against whom a judgment had been obtained from removing his goods pending the prosecution and decision of a writ of error" — which more explicitly captures the temporal scope (the full pendency of the error proceeding, not merely until trial of the error).
None of the historical dictionaries provide meaningful procedural detail about how the writ was obtained, what showing was required, or how the sheriff was to enforce it. They treat it as a known instrument requiring only identification, not explanation. Modern researchers should not expect these entries to supply procedural context; for that, recourse to Registrum Omnium Brevium directly, or to treatises on error practice such as Tidd's Practice or Sellon's Practice of the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas, would be necessary.
Rapalje & Lawrence is the only source that situates the term alongside related writs — immediately followed by the entry for Bono et Malo — which reflects the dictionary's more systematic approach to Latin writ nomenclature and is useful for researchers mapping the broader writ landscape of the period.
Jurisdictional Note
This writ was an instrument of English common law practice and had limited uptake in American courts even during the colonial and early republic periods. American jurisdictions that received English common law practice would in principle have recognized it, but it was largely superseded by equity-based injunctive relief and, eventually, by modern civil procedure rules governing stays pending appeal. It has no operative significance in any current American or English jurisdiction.