Definition
A form of prejudgment attachment available against a resident debtor who absconds, conceals themselves, or otherwise evades service or the jurisdiction of the court — in contrast to foreign attachment, which reaches nonresident debtors. The writ enables a creditor to seize the debtor's property located within the jurisdiction even though the debtor is a legal resident of that jurisdiction, treating the debtor's evasive conduct as functionally equivalent to nonresidence for purposes of the remedy.
The core logic: a resident debtor who flees or hides has placed themselves beyond ordinary process in the same practical way a nonresident would be. Domestic attachment extends the creditor's reach accordingly.
---
Common Confusion
DOMESTIC ATTACHMENT vs. FOREIGN ATTACHMENT: These are companion remedies, not opposites in the sense of conflicting rules. Foreign attachment targets nonresidents; domestic attachment targets residents who have made themselves unavailable. Both result in seizure of property before judgment. Researchers encountering attachment proceedings in historical sources must determine which species is at issue — the procedural rules, notice requirements, and grounds for dissolution often differed between the two forms in the same jurisdiction and era.
DOMESTIC ATTACHMENT vs. GARNISHMENT: Garnishment reaches property or debts held by third parties on the debtor's behalf. Domestic attachment typically reaches the debtor's own property directly. Both are prejudgment remedies and often appear in the same statutory schemes, but they operate through different mechanisms. Historical sources sometimes use the terms loosely.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Domestic attachment is primarily a historical remedy. It flourished in American jurisdictions during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a response to the practical problem of debtors who remained nominally resident but rendered themselves unreachable. By the twentieth century, most states had folded attachment proceedings into general civil procedure codes, and the specific designation "domestic attachment" largely disappeared from statutory language.
Researchers working in pre-Civil War and Gilded Age commercial litigation records will encounter domestic attachment frequently. The key navigational points:
First, the triggering conditions vary by jurisdiction and era. Some statutes required proof of actual absconding; others permitted the writ on a creditor's affidavit that the debtor was concealing property or preparing to leave. The distinction matters enormously for understanding whether a particular proceeding was contested.
Second, the property seized under a domestic attachment writ was held — not immediately transferred — pending judgment. If the creditor ultimately prevailed, the attached property satisfied the judgment. If the debtor appeared and successfully contested the attachment, the property was released. Tracing the outcome of an attachment proceeding requires following the full docket, not just the initial writ.
Third, constitutional due process challenges to prejudgment attachment procedures intensified significantly in the latter half of the twentieth century. Cases addressing notice and hearing requirements reshaped the landscape of all attachment practice. Researchers analyzing mid-century and later sources should be alert to this doctrinal disruption even when the older terminology persists.
Fourth, the single Pennsylvania citation appearing identically across all three historical dictionaries (20 Pa. St. 144) signals that the definition was transmitted through the secondary literature rather than drawn from broad comparative research. Do not treat that citation as representing the general American rule — it reflects Pennsylvania practice specifically.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's, Rapalje & Lawrence, and Burrill are in precise agreement on the core definition, and all three anchor the entry to the same Pennsylvania authority, suggesting a common source. The uniformity is useful confirmation but also a limitation: the historical dictionaries offer no window into how the remedy operated across different state statutory schemes, what grounds were required, or how courts handled disputes over whether a debtor had truly "absconded" versus merely traveled.
Burrill adds the phrase "absent and absconding debtors" alongside "absenting or concealing themselves," which is a marginally fuller articulation of the triggering conduct. None of the three dictionaries address procedural mechanics — the bond requirements creditors typically had to post, the dissolution procedures, or the relationship between the attachment and the underlying action on the debt. Researchers should not treat these entries as procedural guides; they establish the concept and its place in the taxonomy of attachment remedies only.
The cross-reference in Rapalje & Lawrence to "ATTACHMENT, 2" is the more useful entry for researchers seeking procedural depth on attachment practice generally.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Domestic attachment was a creature of individual state statute, and the specific conditions, procedures, and available defenses varied considerably across jurisdictions. Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and other commercial states developed distinct procedural traditions around the remedy. Modern researchers should identify the governing state statute for any historical proceeding rather than applying a generalized rule.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Attachment, Garnishment, and Prejudgment Remedies — The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia (civpro_118)
---