Definition
Latin: "of his own goods." A judgment rendered against an executor, administrator, or other personal representative directing that execution be satisfied from the representative's own individual property rather than from the assets of the decedent's estate. Such a judgment issues when the representative has forfeited the protection normally afforded by fiduciary status — most commonly by committing a devastavit (waste or misapplication of estate assets) or by pleading falsely that the estate has been fully administered (plene administravit) when assets in fact remain.
The phrase names not a cause of action but a form of judgment — the technical designation that appears in the writ or order specifying the source from which execution will run.
Common Confusion
De bonis propriis is frequently encountered alongside its companion phrase de bonis testatoris (or de bonis intestati), which directs execution against the goods of the testator or intestate — that is, the estate itself. The two phrases are structural opposites: de bonis testatoris is the normal judgment against a representative acting properly within the estate; de bonis propriis is the punitive or corrective judgment that shifts liability onto the representative personally. A researcher encountering one phrase in historical pleading records should immediately look for the other, as the distinction controls which assets bear the execution.
Why It Matters in Research
The phrase appears almost exclusively in historical equity and common law pleading materials, particularly in records concerning executor and administrator liability. Modern practice has largely absorbed the concept into statutory surrogate and probate court doctrine without preserving the Latin label, so researchers tracing a line of fiduciary liability doctrine may find the concept alive in modern sources under headings like "personal liability of executor" or "surcharge" rather than under the original Latin.
Two research traps are common. First, the phrase is easily misread or misindexed in digitized records — the Latin is sometimes rendered inconsistently (de bonis propriis, de bonis propris, de biens propres in Law French equivalents). Second, because the judgment form presupposes the underlying fiduciary relationship and a triggering breach, older case reports often discuss de bonis propriis in the context of devastavit doctrine; a search limited to the Latin phrase alone will miss a substantial body of relevant authority discussed only under the English terminology.
Corpus researchers should also note the partial entries in Black's (both editions) and Burrill reproduced here: the source scans break mid-sentence and mid-entry, suggesting the full historical treatment of this phrase connects immediately to de bonis testatoris. Any research project depending on these dictionary entries should verify against complete print editions.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries converge on the core meaning with unusual consistency: all four sources define de bonis propriis as a judgment against a personal representative directing execution against that representative's own goods. Burrill's provides the most developed entry, noting the French Law equivalent (de biens propres) and citing Archbold's Practice and early English and American case authority. Rapalje & Lawrence extend the category slightly beyond executors and administrators to trustees generally, which is a useful expansion reflecting broader equity practice.
Black's (1st edition) adds the significant qualification that the judgment issues specifically in cases of devastavit or a false plea of plene administravit — identifying the triggering conditions rather than merely the judgment form. This doctrinal specificity is absent from Rapalje & Lawrence's briefer treatment.
None of the historical sources address the modern statutory displacement of this form or the ways in which surrogate court practice has recharacterized the personal liability concept. Researchers should treat the historical entries as accurate for common law pleading context but not as guides to current doctrine.
Jurisdictional Note
The phrase carries its historical meaning most reliably in jurisdictions that retained common law forms of action longest. American courts absorbed the concept into statutory executor and administrator liability, and state probate codes vary significantly in how and when personal liability attaches. The Latin label itself has little operative force in modern American proceedings.