Definition
Rangement is an obsolete term from equity jurisprudence referring to the satisfaction of a debt by a legacy — that is, a situation where a testator who owed a debt to a person also leaves that person a bequest in a will, and the bequest is treated by courts of equity as intended to discharge the debt rather than to supplement it. The doctrine operates as a species of equitable satisfaction: the creditor-legatee is presumed to have been made whole by the testamentary gift and may not pursue both the legacy and the debt.
The governing presumption is conditional. Where the legacy equals or exceeds the debt, equity presumes the testator intended the bequest as satisfaction. Where the legacy is smaller than the debt, equity will not treat it as partial satisfaction pro tanto — the legatee may take both the lesser legacy and pursue the remaining debt. This asymmetry is a fixed feature of the doctrine as Bouvier records it.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Arrangement.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Arrangement. Marked as obsolete.
The legal meaning is narrower and more technical than the common word from which it derives. "Rangement" in equity was not a general synonym for any arrangement or settlement of accounts. It referred specifically to the testamentary satisfaction mechanism — the particular equity rule governing legacies that coincide with debts. A researcher encountering the term in an older chancery document should not read it as a generic settlement term.
Common Confusion
Rangement is easily conflated with two adjacent doctrines: ademption (reduction or extinction of a legacy when the subject matter no longer exists at death) and accord and satisfaction (a contractual settlement of a dispute during the testator's lifetime). All three can result in a creditor receiving less than the face value of a claim, but the mechanisms are distinct. Rangement operates posthumously, in equity, through presumed intent from the coincidence of a legacy and a preexisting debt. It does not require any agreement between the parties and is not triggered by events during the testator's life.
Why It Matters in Research
Rangement is nearly extinct as a term of art. Researchers will encounter it almost exclusively in pre-twentieth-century equity reports and treatises, and in Bouvier's own synthesis of chancery precedent. Its disappearance from modern legal vocabulary means keyword searches using the term will underperform: the underlying doctrine survives under "equitable satisfaction" or "satisfaction of debts by legacies," and researchers should pivot to those headings when tracing the rule's evolution past the mid-nineteenth century.
The cases Bouvier cites span Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, and federal circuits, reflecting the doctrine's broad acceptance across American equity courts before the merger of law and equity. After merger, the doctrine was absorbed into the general law of wills and estates under the rubric of satisfaction or advancements, and rangement as a standalone term faded. Researchers working in post-merger probate or estate law should search for the doctrine under "satisfaction of legacy" or "ademption by satisfaction" rather than rangement.
The asymmetry in the rule — legacy less than debt does not satisfy pro tanto — is a research trap. A reader encountering a pre-merger equity opinion that seems to allow a legatee to collect both a legacy and a debt may assume the rule was ignored or misapplied, when in fact it was correctly applied because the legacy fell short of the debt amount. Understanding the directionality of the presumption is essential to reading these cases accurately.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier is the primary English-language legal dictionary source for rangement as a distinct term. His entry identifies the doctrine's equity basis, states the threshold rule (legacy equal to or exceeding the debt triggers the presumption; lesser legacy does not), and gestures toward the case law foundation. Bouvier's attribution to Judge Redfield — suggesting the rule "maintained" a line of equity precedents — indicates this was understood as settled chancery doctrine, not a contested novelty, by the mid-nineteenth century.
Webster's 1913 records "rangement" as an archaic synonym for "arrangement," citing Waterland, with no legal content. This confirms the term had already passed out of general usage by the time Webster compiled his dictionary, surviving only in legal specialty sources. No modern general dictionary includes the term.
The gap between Bouvier's technical entry and Webster's bare obsolescence note illustrates how legal vocabulary can outlive common vocabulary: courts and treatise writers continued to use rangement in its equitable sense after the word had vanished from ordinary English.
Jurisdictional Note
The doctrine Bouvier describes was applied across American equity jurisdictions in the nineteenth century. Because equity practice was absorbed into unified civil procedure at different times in different states, the point at which "rangement" gives way to "satisfaction of legacies" in local case law varies. English chancery sources, where the doctrine originated, may use the term or its French cognate in older reports.