Definition
In old Law French legal usage, *garnement* means furniture, clothing, or a garment. The term appears in medieval English legal writing as a metaphor: an obligation is said to be "clothed" in certain forms or modes, each form being a kind of *garnement*. The usage is primarily figurative — the concept of dressing or clothing a legal obligation refers to the formal requirements or recognized species by which an obligation could be constituted and given legal effect.
The specific formulation preserved in Britton is that an obligation may be clothed in five kinds of garments (*cinq maneres de garnementz*), meaning that there were five recognized forms through which a binding legal obligation could arise or be expressed.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A garment is any article of clothing worn on the body.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "A covering for the body; clothing; specifically, an article of clothing." Webster treats the word as purely sartorial.
The gap here is entirely metaphorical. In legal usage, *garnement* is not used literally at all. The Law French legal writers borrowed the clothing image to describe the formal modes or investitures of legal obligation — the outward forms that gave an obligation its legally cognizable shape. A researcher encountering the term in a medieval legal text should read past the literal meaning and understand it as referring to the recognized forms of obligation, not to physical garments.
---
Common Confusion
GARNEMENT vs. GARNISHMENT: These terms share a root but are entirely unrelated in legal function. *Garnishment* is a modern debt-collection procedure by which a creditor reaches funds or property of a debtor held by a third party. *Garnement* is a medieval Law French metaphor for the formal modes of legal obligation. The etymological proximity is a genuine source of confusion when researchers encounter both terms in legal dictionaries or indexes without context.
---
Why It Matters in Research
*Garnement* is a term of very limited circulation, appearing primarily in sources derived from or commenting on Britton, the thirteenth-century English legal treatise written in Law French. Researchers working in early English legal history, particularly on the law of obligations, contract, and debt before the consolidation of assumpsit, may encounter this term in transcriptions, editions, or secondary commentary on Britton.
The chief research trap is literal misreading. A researcher scanning a medieval text or an early modern digest who encounters *garnement* and reads it as a reference to physical clothing or property in clothing will miss its technical function as a metaphor for formal legal modes. This is especially likely because the same root word (*garner*, *garnish*, *garnement*) produces multiple related but distinct legal terms — including *garnishment*, a wholly different modern procedure — which can further confuse the picture.
The passage from Britton (c. 28, c. 39) is the primary locus for this term. Researchers should consult Nichols's edition of Britton for context. Secondary literature on the medieval English law of obligations will sometimes reference this passage when tracing the pre-common-law categorization of binding duties.
Because the term is historically bounded and metaphorical in function, it does not appear in modern legal usage and carries no jurisdictional variation or ongoing doctrinal significance.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill is the principal authority preserving this term in the English legal dictionary tradition. His entry is compact but accurate: he identifies the Law French origin, gives the literal meaning (furniture, clothing, garment), and quotes the operative passage from Britton with sufficient context to reveal the metaphorical legal application.
What Burrill does not do — and what a researcher needs to supply from the primary source — is unpack what the "five kinds of garments" actually were in Britton's analysis of obligations. The dictionary entry preserves the vocabulary without explaining the substantive doctrine it encodes. Researchers should treat Burrill's entry as a pointer to Britton rather than as a self-contained explanation.
No other standard English legal dictionary in the historical shelf (not Bouvier, not Black's, not Jacob's) appears to carry a separate entry for *garnement* as a legal term of art, which reflects both its narrow circulation and its obsolescence. Its survival in Burrill is largely a function of his more comprehensive treatment of Law French vocabulary.
---