Definition
A writ commanding the sheriff to arrest a person who has been declared an outlaw and bring that person before the court. The writ issued as part of the sequential process of outlawry — the formal legal mechanism by which a defendant who repeatedly evaded judicial process was stripped of the protection of the law.
Two forms existed. The general capias utligatum directed the sheriff simply to seize and produce the outlaw before the court on a general return day. The special capias utligatum went further: it directed the sheriff to arrest the outlaw and additionally to take possession of the outlaw's goods and chattels, with a jury summoned to assess their value — reflecting the consequence that an outlaw forfeited property to the Crown or lord.
The writ functioned as a downstream enforcement mechanism. It issued after earlier process — including the capias — had failed to compel the defendant's appearance. Outlawry itself was the legal conclusion reached after that sequential process ran its course without compliance.
---
Common Confusion
CAPIAS UTLIGATUM is one of several writs sharing the capias family name, and researchers unfamiliar with outlawry procedure may conflate it with the foundational CAPIAS writ or with CAPIAS AD RESPONDENDUM. The distinction is positional: capias ad respondendum was an early-stage arrest writ issued to compel a defendant to appear and answer; capias utligatum was a late-stage writ issued only after the defendant had already been declared an outlaw through failed prior process. The special form of capias utligatum also carries a property-seizure dimension absent from standard capias writs, which makes misidentification consequential when reading historical pleading records.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
General capias utligatum: Directed the sheriff to arrest the outlaw and produce the person before the court. No additional property instruction.
Special capias utligatum: Directed arrest of the outlaw and, additionally, seizure of the outlaw's goods and chattels. Required the sheriff to summon a jury to determine the value of those goods, initiating the forfeiture process.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encountering this writ in historical court records are seeing a very late stage of civil or criminal process — evidence that earlier mechanisms (summons, attachment, capias) had all failed. Its presence in a file signals that the court had already declared the defendant an outlaw, which is itself a significant procedural and substantive event that may be recorded in separate process entries earlier in the same or related files.
The special form is particularly significant for property history research. Because it triggered jury valuation of the outlaw's goods, records associated with it may contain inventories or valuations that appear in contexts a researcher might not anticipate when searching for probate or property records.
Outlawry was formally abolished in England for civil proceedings by statute in the nineteenth century and had no transplanted doctrinal life in American practice as a formal legal status. Researchers working in American jurisdictions will not encounter this writ as operative legal process, but may encounter it in colonial-era records or in English legal materials that informed early American practice. Treatises on common law pleading and process — Blackstone's Commentaries, Tidd's Practice — address the outlawry process in which this writ sits, and are the appropriate resources for reconstructing the procedural sequence surrounding it.
The truncated Bouvier entry (appearing cut off in source material) notes the writ "was issued to comp—" — almost certainly completing as "issued to compel appearance" or "issued to compel surrender." Researchers should treat the Bouvier entry as a starting point and consult fuller treatments of outlawry procedure for the complete process chain.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary provides the foundational entry, distinguishing the general and special forms and identifying the writ's place in the process following the capias. The entry is brief and appears incomplete in available source material, suggesting either editorial truncation or a printing artifact in the edition consulted.
No entry appears in Black's Law Dictionary entries available for cross-comparison in this corpus. Given the writ's obsolescence by the time Black's early editions were compiled, its absence or cursory treatment there would not be surprising. Researchers seeking the fullest historical treatment of this writ should consult Giles Jacob's Law Dictionary and Blackstone's account of outlawry procedure in the Commentaries, both of which situate the writ within the broader sequenced process of which it was a part. The writ's significance is inseparable from that sequence; no dictionary entry alone captures its meaning as fully as a procedural account does.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This writ belongs to English common law process and has no active analog in any American jurisdiction. It may appear in colonial American records from jurisdictions that imported English common law process closely, but even there its use was limited. Researchers should treat it as a historical English common law instrument.
---