Definition
De bonis testatoris (Latin: "of the goods of the testator") is a term describing a form of judgment or execution directed against the assets of a deceased person's estate — specifically, the property held by the estate that is available to satisfy a debt or obligation of the decedent. When a creditor obtains a judgment against a personal representative (executor or administrator), the judgment is said to be de bonis testatoris if execution runs against the decedent's own assets rather than against the personal representative's private property.
The term operates in contrast to de bonis propriis — "of one's own goods" — which describes execution against the personal representative's own assets, typically imposed as a penalty when the representative has mismanaged or wasted the estate.
---
Common Confusion
De bonis testatoris is routinely paired with — and confused against — de bonis propriis. The distinction is critical: de bonis testatoris means the creditor collects from the estate; de bonis propriis means the representative pays from personal funds, usually as a consequence of devastavit (waste of the estate). A researcher encountering either phrase in historical pleading records must determine which form of execution is at issue, as they reflect entirely different legal consequences and different parties bearing the loss. Note also that the Latin phrase applies equally to intestate estates — some sources render the full form as de bonis testatoris (or intestati) to cover both testate and intestate administration. The truncation in Black's 2nd Edition appears to have been cut short in available source text, but the intended full phrase is standard.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in historical pleading records, equity reports, and early American and English common law materials. Researchers are unlikely to encounter it in modern case law, where the underlying concepts survive under procedural and probate statutes that use plain-language equivalents. Its primary research relevance is threefold.
First, when reading historical writs, declarations in assumpsit or debt, or chancery pleadings involving executors, the phrase signals what species of liability is being asserted — estate liability versus personal liability of the representative. Misreading the form of judgment distorts the legal posture of the case.
Second, the term connects directly to the doctrine of devastavit and to creditor priority rules in estate administration. A transition from a de bonis testatoris judgment to a de bonis propriis remedy in the same litigation signals that a court found the representative had committed waste — a significant factual and legal finding that reshapes who bears the loss.
Third, the phrase appears in the cross-reference entry for CONTRIBUTIONE FACIENDA in Rapalje & Lawrence, indicating it was part of a cluster of Latin process terms governing multi-party creditor situations against estates. Researchers following a chain of historical citations should expect to encounter related Latin writs in the same sources.
Modern probate codes have displaced the writ machinery these terms described, but the underlying liability distinctions — estate assets versus representative's personal assets — remain operative in contemporary fiduciary law under different vocabulary.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence defines the term cleanly and functionally: "of a testator's goods," a judgment against a personal representative that awards execution against the property of the intestate or testator. This is the core meaning and the definition holds well across the historical record.
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) begins a parallel entry — rendered in the source as DE BONIS TESTATORIS, or INTES- — with the text cut short, but the intended completion is de bonis testatoris, or intestati, confirming Black's recognized both testate and intestate variants under the same heading. This aligns with the broader common law practice of applying identical procedural machinery regardless of whether the decedent died with or without a will.
Neither source elaborates the procedural history of how such judgments were obtained or the pleading requirements that attached to them, which were detailed in older English practice manuals. For deeper procedural context, researchers should consult Blackstone's Commentaries (Book III) and Chitty on Pleading, both of which situate these Latin forms within the architecture of common law actions against executors.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The term and its associated procedural framework are products of English common law and were adopted into early American practice. American probate law has long since displaced the writ system through statutory reform, and the term carries no operative significance in modern U.S. courts. English practice similarly absorbed these forms into the Administration of Estates Act 1925 and successor legislation. The phrase survives as research vocabulary for pre-twentieth-century materials in both traditions.
---