Definition
Trespass de bonis asportatis (Latin: "for goods carried away") is a common law form of action brought by the owner of personal property to recover damages from a defendant who unlawfully took and carried away those goods. The action lies for the wrongful taking itself — not merely for detention or interference — and the plaintiff need not show permanent loss. The unauthorized removal of the goods is the gist of the wrong.
The action is distinct from detinue (which seeks return of specific goods) and trover (which proceeds on a theory of conversion). Trespass de bonis asportatis seeks monetary damages for the trespassory taking.
Common Confusion
TRESPASS DE BONIS ASPORTATIS is frequently confused with TROVER and DETINUE, the two other primary common law actions for interference with personal property. The distinctions are procedurally and conceptually significant:
Trespass de bonis asportatis requires a direct, forcible, unlawful taking and carrying away. Trover developed to address situations where goods came lawfully into the defendant's hands but were then converted to the defendant's own use — no forcible taking required. Detinue lies for wrongful detention of specific goods and seeks their return or the payment of their value, rather than damages for a taking.
The practical consequence: a researcher looking at historical pleadings must identify which form was used to understand what the plaintiff was alleging and what remedy was sought. Using the wrong action at common law was often fatal to the plaintiff's case.
Core Elements
For a plaintiff to maintain trespass de bonis asportatis, the following elements were required:
1. PERSONAL PROPERTY: The subject of the action must be tangible, movable goods belonging to the plaintiff.
2. POSSESSION: The plaintiff must have had actual possession of the goods at the time of the taking. A bare right to possession (without actual possession) was generally insufficient to support this form of trespass; trover was the more appropriate remedy in such cases.
3. UNLAWFUL TAKING: The defendant must have taken the goods without legal justification or consent.
4. ASPORTATION: The goods must have been carried away — physically removed from the plaintiff's possession. Mere interference without removal would not support this specific form.
5. DAMAGES: The plaintiff suffered loss as a result of the taking.
Critically, return of the goods is not a defense. The wrong was complete upon the unlawful taking and removal.
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in historical legal materials — colonial-era pleadings, nineteenth-century case reports, and common law treatises. Researchers working in Law Mind's historical corpus will encounter the abbreviated form "trespass d.b.a." or the full Latin phrase in pleading records, court dockets, and early American and English case reporters.
Key research traps:
PLEADING PRECISION: At common law, trespass de bonis asportatis was a specific writ with specific requirements. Courts dismissed actions where plaintiffs conflated this form with trover or case. Reading historical decisions requires understanding which form was pleaded and why it succeeded or failed — the substantive outcome often turned entirely on the choice of action.
MODERN EQUIVALENCE: This action has no direct modern counterpart as a labeled cause of action. Its functional successor in most American jurisdictions is the tort of conversion (for intentional permanent deprivation) or trespass to chattels (for lesser interference). Researchers tracking doctrinal lineage from historical materials into modern case law must make this translation explicitly — courts and commentators do not always signal it clearly.
RETURN OF GOODS: Bouvier flags that return of goods is no defense. This rule distinguishes this action from replevin, where return of goods is precisely the remedy. Researchers encountering disputes about whether a defendant's return of property extinguished liability should look for which action was brought.
JURISDICTIONAL SURVIVAL: In some American states, common law forms of action were preserved by statute well into the twentieth century, meaning trespass de bonis asportatis may appear in relatively modern state court records. The term does not automatically signal an ancient document.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines the action as brought "by the owner of goods to recover damages for unlawfully taking and carrying them away," citing 1 Me. 117, and states affirmatively that return of the goods is no answer to the action.
Bouvier's treatment is concise but accurate on the core rule. The entry does not address the distinction between trespass de bonis asportatis and trover in any depth, nor does it discuss the possession requirement — a gap that matters when a plaintiff held title but not possession. Historical researchers should supplement Bouvier with Blackstone's Commentaries (Book III) and Chitty on Pleading for fuller treatment of the pleading requirements and the circumstances under which one form was preferred over another.
The Latin phrase itself is sometimes rendered in shortened forms in historical sources: "trespass d.b.a.," "de bonis asportatis," or simply glossed as "trespass for taking goods." All refer to the same action.
Jurisdictional Note
The action is a creature of English common law and was received into American jurisdictions generally. Its availability in specific states depended on whether the jurisdiction adopted common law forms of pleading or moved to code pleading under Field Code reforms after the mid-nineteenth century. In code pleading states, the form dissolved into the general tort of conversion or trespass to chattels; in common law pleading states, it persisted longer. Researchers should check whether the relevant jurisdiction had adopted code pleading by the date of the document under review.