Definition
Gager de deliverance (also written gager deliverance) is an old English legal obligation arising in distress proceedings. When a distraining party — one who had seized another's cattle or goods as security for a debt or duty — was sued by the owner and had not yet returned the distrained property, the distrainor was required to do two things: first, formally avow (acknowledge and justify) the distress; and second, put in surety or pledge guaranteeing that the distrained goods would in fact be delivered. The term translates roughly from Law French as "to pledge or undertake for the delivery." It is a procedural safeguard ensuring that the party holding distrained property could not simply ignore a lawsuit and retain the goods indefinitely without giving security for their return.
---
Common Confusion
Gager de deliverance is sometimes loosely grouped with replevin remedies, but the two operate from opposite positions. Replevin is the owner's action to recover distrained goods; gager de deliverance is the distrainor's obligation — a pledge the defendant must furnish once sued. The former is the plaintiff's weapon; the latter is a condition placed on the defendant who has not yet surrendered what was distrained. Researchers who conflate the two will misread the procedural posture of historical distress actions.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is purely historical and appears almost exclusively in sources predating the nineteenth century. Researchers will encounter it only when working with early English common law materials — Year Books, Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium, Kelham's dictionary, or treatises on the old law of distress. It does not survive as an operative concept in modern Anglo-American law, where distress has been substantially reformed or abolished and equivalent protections are folded into statutory replevin and attachment procedures.
Several navigational traps exist for researchers:
First, the spelling varies considerably across historical sources. Gager, gager de, gager deliverance, and gage de deliverance all appear. Keyword searches in historical legal databases must account for these variants, particularly in sources that transcribe Law French inconsistently.
Second, the procedural mechanics hinge on the distinction between a distrainor who has already returned the goods and one who has not. Both Bouvier and Black frame the obligation conditionally: the pledge is required only when the cattle have not been delivered at the time suit is brought. Researchers analyzing historical distress litigation must track the timing of return to understand which procedural path applied.
Third, the term connects to a broader cluster of archaic distress concepts — avowry, replevin, pound breach, rescue — that operated as an integrated procedural system. Isolating gager de deliverance without understanding that system produces incomplete analysis. The obligation to avow the distress runs alongside the pledge requirement; neither element can be read in isolation.
Fourth, American legal sources essentially omit this term after the early republic. Bouvier includes it as a dictionary entry but treats it as historical even by his era. Researchers working in American materials from the mid-nineteenth century onward should not expect to find it in operative use.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier and Black are in full agreement on substance, with nearly identical descriptions. Both condition the obligation on the distrainor's failure to deliver at the time of suit, both require avowry alongside the pledge, and both cite Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium as the primary authority. Bouvier adds a reference to Kelham's dictionary — a useful pointer for researchers who want the Law French linguistic context — while Black's citation to Fitzherbert is slightly abbreviated but points to the same source.
Neither entry elaborates on how the pledge was actually furnished or what consequences followed if it was not given. Historical treatises on distress, including those predating Blackstone, would be the appropriate next stop for procedural detail. Neither Bouvier nor Black attempts to connect the term to American practice, which accurately reflects its status as a purely English common law survival.
The absence of this term from later editions of Black's and from legal encyclopedias such as American Jurisprudence or Corpus Juris Secundum confirms that it did not migrate into the American legal vocabulary in any operative sense.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Gager de deliverance is English in origin and has no recognized counterpart in American statutory law. Jurisdictions that reformed distress law through replevin statutes in the nineteenth century effectively displaced the procedural framework within which this obligation operated. It is of research relevance only in English legal history and early colonial American contexts where common law distress practice was carried over without modification.
---