Definition
A forthcoming bond is a surety bond given to a sheriff or other levying officer after property has been seized under a writ of execution (most commonly a writ of fieri facias) or distress warrant. The bond is conditioned on the debtor's promise to produce — make forthcoming — the seized property at the time and place required for sale or other disposition. In exchange for the bond, the officer allows the property to remain in the debtor's possession rather than physically removing it into custody.
Two practical functions are served: the debtor retains use of the property pending the legal process, and the creditor and officer are protected against the property being concealed, transferred, or destroyed. If the debtor fails to produce the property when required, the bond is breached and the surety becomes liable.
On breach, the measure of damages is generally the value of the property at the time the bond was executed, subject to a ceiling of the amount of the underlying execution debt, interest, and costs — the bond cannot be used as a windfall beyond the judgment owed.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Forthcoming" means about to appear or happen, or willing to provide information. A forthcoming bond does not appear as a defined legal term in general usage dictionaries.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Forthcoming" — ready to appear; making appearance; about to be produced.
The ordinary sense of "forthcoming" as something about to appear maps loosely onto the legal meaning — the property is promised to be produced when called for — but the legal term is a formal instrument with specific procedural consequences, breach remedies, and surety obligations that have no parallel in everyday usage. A researcher who encounters the phrase in a historical document should not assume informal usage; this is a technical term of execution practice.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The forthcoming bond was a creature of execution practice — specifically the process of enforcing money judgments through seizure of personal property. Researchers will encounter this term primarily in:
1. Pre-20th-century American case law and practice, particularly in Virginia, Georgia, and other Southern states where the device was heavily used and well-litigated. The Virginia Reports (Washington's and Grattan's) and Georgia Reports contain substantial doctrine on forthcoming bonds. Burrill's citation to 2 Wash. (Va.) R. and 11 Grattan's is a reliable entry point into this body of law.
2. Sheriff's manuals, execution treatises, and civil procedure texts from the 18th and 19th centuries. The forthcoming bond was a standard tool of sheriff practice and will appear in procedural materials, not just case reporters.
3. Older statutes governing execution and levy. Several states had specific statutory regimes authorizing and regulating forthcoming bonds; the bond's validity and conditions were often creatures of statute, meaning the applicable law could differ sharply by jurisdiction and time period.
The key research trap: forthcoming bond doctrine is largely obsolete in modern American practice. Modern execution and levy procedures have been reformed, and the specific mechanism of a debtor-retained-possession bond secured by surety has been replaced or absorbed into broader execution frameworks. A researcher citing forthcoming bond cases for modern propositions about surety liability or execution procedure should verify that the underlying statutory regime still exists in the target jurisdiction.
A secondary trap appears in Burrill's entry, which runs two entirely separate definitions together without a clear break — the American practice definition (the bond) and an old English law definition of a completely different concept (force used by an accessory to enable a principal to commit a crime). These are unrelated. The "forthcoming" in the bond context and the "force" concept in the English criminal law entry should not be conflated; Burrill's formatting creates genuine risk of misreading.
Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus should connect forthcoming bond materials to the broader architecture of suretyship law and execution practice. The bond is a species of performance surety bond in a specifically procedural context.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
All three source dictionaries agree on the core definition: a bond given to a sheriff conditioned on the production of levied property when required, allowing the debtor interim possession. The sources are consistent and mutually reinforcing.
Bouvier's (appearing twice in the source material, representing what are likely different editions) adds the most substantive doctrine. The second Bouvier's entry provides the damages measure — value at time of bond execution, capped at execution debt, interest, and costs — which neither Black's nor Burrill's supplies in the same detail. This is the most practically useful gloss and represents settled case law from Georgia decisions by the time of that Bouvier's edition.
Black's (2nd Ed.) adds the procedural mechanism most clearly: "On the giving of such bond, the goods are allowed to remain in the possession of the debtor." This articulates the quid pro quo at the heart of the device. Black's also begins a reference to the writ of fieri facias and distress warrant context, confirming the execution-practice setting.
Burrill's is notable for its extensive citation to Virginia practice, making it the most useful of the three for researchers working in antebellum Virginia law. However, as noted above, Burrill's entry is corrupted by the inclusion of an unrelated old English criminal law concept in the same entry block. Researchers should treat the American practice definition in Burrill's as reliable and disregard the trailing English law material as an artifact of the source's organization.
None of the historical dictionaries address the forthcoming bond's statutory basis, its relationship to replevin bonds or delivery bonds (which are close analogues), or its eventual obsolescence. These gaps are significant for research extending beyond the 19th century.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The forthcoming bond was most extensively developed in Virginia and Georgia, where it was the subject of substantial litigation reflected in the antebellum and Reconstruction-era reporters. Other Southern states had comparable statutory frameworks. The device was less prominent in Northern practice, where different execution mechanics prevailed. Researchers should not assume uniform national doctrine; the applicable rules were largely statutory and varied by state.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia: contracts_168 — Suretyship: Performance Bonds and Payment Bonds (Construction Context). For the general architecture of surety bond obligations and breach consequences, which inform forthcoming bond doctrine even outside the construction setting.
The Law Mind Insurance Law Encyclopedia: insurance_69 — Surety Bonds: Performance, Payment, and Bid Bonds. For the treatment of surety liability principles applicable across bond types.
---