Definition
The Court of Attachments was the lowest of three tiers of forest courts in medieval English law. It was convened before the verderers of the royal forest once every forty days to inquire into offenses against the forest law — principally trespasses against the vert (vegetation) and venison (game) that were within royal protection. The court could not itself impose final judgment on offenders; its function was preliminary and administrative, holding accused persons or their pledges to answer at a higher tribunal. It occupied the bottom rung of a three-court hierarchy: above it sat the Swanimote, a mid-level forest court; and above that, the Justice Seat (also called the Eyre of the Forest, or Justice in Eyre's Seat), which held the highest authority in forest matters and alone could impose serious penalties. The Court of Attachments has been entirely obsolete for centuries and has no successor institution in modern law.
---
Common Confusion
The word "attachment" in this term has nothing to do with the modern civil procedure remedy of attachment, by which a court seizes a defendant's property to secure satisfaction of a potential judgment. The confusion is understandable: both uses share the root concept of seizing or securing something pending further legal action. But the Court of Attachments operated in a wholly distinct legal universe — English forest law — and its function was custodial and inquisitorial, not a prejudgment property remedy. Researchers who encounter "attachment" in forest law records should not assume any connection to prejudgment remedies, garnishment doctrine, or the constitutional questions surrounding modern attachment practice.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is a navigational hazard for researchers working with medieval and early modern English legal sources. Its principal traps are three:
First, the word "attachment" is one of the most promiscuous terms in Anglo-American legal history. It appears in forest law, admiralty practice, civil procedure, and criminal procedure, each with distinct meaning. A researcher encountering "attachment" in a historical forest law record — particularly in the Year Books, forest eyre rolls, or Manwood's Treatise on the Laws of the Forest — is dealing with this institution, not with any form of prejudgment remedy.
Second, the three-court hierarchy matters for understanding what a given forest record actually decided. The Court of Attachments could not render final judgment. Records from this court reflect preliminary inquiries and pledges, not dispositions. Researchers looking for outcomes must follow the trail upward to the Swanimote and ultimately to the Justice Seat rolls.
Third, because the Court of Attachments fell into total disuse well before the modern period, it does not appear in any living common law jurisdiction and generates no modern case law. Its relevance is purely historical — relevant to legal historians, historians of royal prerogative, and scholars of English land and forest law. No American or Commonwealth jurisdiction has preserved or adapted this institution.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries are largely in agreement on this term, though Bouvier's provides the most complete account. All sources affirm that the Court of Attachments was the lowest forest court and that it had fallen into total disuse by the time these dictionaries were compiled. Bouvier's adds the critical structural detail: the forty-day sitting cycle before the verderers, and its position relative to the Swanimote and the Justice Seat. Burrill's entry simply cross-references "Attachments," offering no independent elaboration.
The historical dictionaries do not explain the substantive forest law the court administered — the distinction between vert and venison offenses, the role of verderers as permanent forest officers, or the relationship between forest law and common law courts. Researchers needing that depth must look beyond the standard law dictionaries to specialist sources on English forest law, including Manwood's work and the secondary literature on the royal forests.
None of the historical sources offer any case or statutory authority. This reflects the institution's antiquity: by the era of systematic legal reporting, the court was already a dead letter.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This institution was specific to the royal forests of medieval England and has no counterpart in any modern jurisdiction, including England and Wales. It is not a model for any contemporary court structure. Researchers working in American, Canadian, or Australian legal history will not encounter this institution in any operative sense.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Note: The Law Mind Encyclopedia entries on attachment — civpro_118 (Attachment, Garnishment, and Prejudgment Remedies), criminal_170 (Double Jeopardy — Attachment and Scope), and criminal_174 (Right to Counsel — Attachment and Critical Stages) — address distinct modern doctrines that share only the word "attachment" with this term. None of those entries are relevant to the Court of Attachments as a forest court. Researchers should consult those entries only if their inquiry concerns modern civil or criminal procedure, not English forest law history.
---