Definition
Seizure of goods for, in historical English and early American law, refers to the Crown's (or state's) act of taking possession of a person's personal property on account of an alleged or adjudicated offense — most commonly treason or felony — as a precursor to or consequence of forfeiture. The seizure was the mechanism by which the sovereign secured the goods pending or following legal proceedings; forfeiture was the legal extinguishment of the owner's title that the seizure anticipated or enforced.
The phrase is best understood as a term of art introducing a category: "seizure of goods for [offense]," meaning a seizure predicated upon a specified crime. The goods were not yet forfeited at the moment of seizure; seizure was the intermediate act that preserved the Crown's interest while proceedings were resolved.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Two formal varieties were recognized in English practice:
1. VERBAL SEIZURE. An inventory is taken and the goods are charged to the town or locality where the owner stands indicted. The goods remain physically in place; the seizure is one of legal custody and record, not physical removal.
2. ACTUAL SEIZURE. The goods are physically removed after conviction. Title having been defeated by judgment, the Crown or its officers take the property into hand.
These categories track the distinction between pre-conviction and post-conviction practice, with verbal seizure functioning as a kind of constructive hold on property whose fate depended on the outcome of criminal proceedings.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in pre-20th-century English or American legal sources will encounter this term almost exclusively in criminal forfeiture contexts. Three points of navigational importance:
First, the underlying doctrine has been substantially abolished in England. The Forfeiture Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 23) ended forfeiture of goods for treason and felony in English law. Sources citing seizure of goods for treason or felony as an active doctrine are therefore dated to the pre-1870 period or are describing historical practice. American law followed a different trajectory — federal criminal forfeiture was revived and dramatically expanded in the late 20th century through statutes such as RICO and the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 — but the specific historical mechanism described here (verbal/actual seizure tied to attainder) is a creature of common law, not of modern American forfeiture practice.
Second, the term "seizure of goods for" is an incomplete phrase by design. It always requires a following noun identifying the predicate offense or legal basis (seizure of goods for treason, for felony, for customs violations, etc.). In index and digest research, look for the completed phrase, not the fragment alone.
Third, modern Fourth Amendment seizure doctrine and modern civil or criminal forfeiture law share vocabulary with this historical concept but operate under entirely different frameworks. A researcher moving between 19th-century common law sources and contemporary constitutional or statutory materials must resist assuming continuity of doctrine merely because the word "seizure" appears in both.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje and Lawrence's entry is terse but structurally useful. The editors identify the two-part taxonomy (verbal and actual) and anchor the doctrine in Coke's Institutes (3 Inst. 103), then note its abolition by 33 and 34 Vict. c. 23, crediting Wharton for that update. The entry reflects the typical 19th-century American law dictionary approach: doctrinal summary drawn from English common law authority, with a terminal note on statutory modification.
The most instructive aspect of the entry is what it implies about timing. Verbal seizure precedes conviction; actual seizure follows it. This maps onto a procedural logic — the Crown needed to secure goods before a convict could alienate or conceal them, but outright confiscation awaited the verdict. The phrase "before they are forfeited" in the Rapalje and Lawrence text makes this sequence explicit: seizure and forfeiture are legally distinct events.
No significant divergence among historical dictionary sources is apparent on this narrow term, likely because the doctrine had already been abolished in England by the time most American legal dictionaries were compiled, leaving editors to treat it as antiquarian reference material.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The historical doctrine described here is English common law and has no direct operational counterpart in modern American practice. Contemporary American forfeiture — whether civil in rem or criminal in personam — is governed by federal and state statutes, not by common law seizure doctrine. English law abolished the underlying forfeiture in 1870. Researchers applying this term to modern contexts should treat it as historical background only.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Fourth Amendment — Search and Seizure — Warrant Requirement and Probable Cause (The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia)
The Defend Trade Secrets Act — Federal Civil Action and Ex Parte Seizure (The Law Mind Intellectual Property Encyclopedia)
---