''Rapina'' (theft with violence) was a

delict Delict (from Latin ''dēlictum'', past participle of ''dēlinquere'' ‘to be at fault, offend’) is a term in civil and mixed law jurisdictions whose exact meaning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but is always centered on the notion of ...

Roman law Roman law is the law, legal system of ancient Rome, including the legal developments spanning over a thousand years of jurisprudence, from the Twelve Tables (c. 449 BC), to the ''Corpus Juris Civilis'' (AD 529) ordered by Eastern Roman emperor J ...

Form

This was erected into a special delict in the troubled times of the

Roman Republic The Roman Republic ( la, Res publica Romana ) was a form of government of Rome and the era of the classical Roman civilization when it was run through public representation of the Roman people. Beginning with the overthrow of the Roman Kin ...

, and the rules became a permanent part of the law. The action was in factum and condemnation involved infamy. The penalty was fourfold, or rather, as this included the value of the thing, for threefold and compensation. As it was penal and praetorian, it was ''annua'', but, as it covered compensation as well, ''perpetua'' as to the single value. Hence it was said to be ''mixta'' by some jurists and Justinian so decides, but it had the main characteristic of penal actions that it was not available against the heirs of the wrongdoer. As the act was ''

furtum ''Furtum'' was a delict of Roman law comparable to the modern offence of theft (as it is usually translated) despite being a civil and not criminal wrong. In the classical law and later, it denoted the contrectatio ("handling") of most types of p ...

'' there would always be the '' condictio furtiva''. The principles were in general those of ''actio furti''. Thus it applied only to ''res mobiles in commercio'' and owned. The

contrectatio ''Furtum'' was a delict of Roman law comparable to the modern offence of theft (as it is usually translated) despite being a civil and not criminal wrong. In the classical law and later, it denoted the contrectatio ("handling") of most types of p ...

must be fraudulosa. On some points, however, there are slight signs of divergence. Thus we are told that what could be recovered was a multiple of the ''verum pretium'', not of the interest the aggrieved had in the thing (''interesse''), but as one text tells us this of furtum also, the import is doubtful. Though in general those who could bring it were the same, one text, probably due to Justinian, says that any sort of ''interesse'' sufficed in this case; in classical law the rule of ''interesse'' was the same as in furtum. One text suggests that mere encouragement was enough to make a man liable for ope consilio, which is consistent with the genesis of the action. The action was a bar to ''actio furti'' and any action ''ad rem persequendam''. Probably in classical law it was barred by ''actio furti'', but under Justinian it was still available for any excess recoverable by it. It is plain that, in manifest theft, furti would be the better remedy, but not in other cases. It does not appear that the action could have been barred by

vindicatio ''Rei vindicatio'' is a legal action by which the plaintiff demands that the defendant return a thing that belongs to the plaintiff. It may be used only when the plaintiff owns the thing, and the defendant has wrongly claimed or assumed possession ...

, at least as to threefold.

Similar actions

This delict involved bad faith, but violent enforcement of claims, even in good faith, needed repression. Such conduct had been criminal from the Republic, and Marcus Aurelius provided that one who seized property to satisfy a claim, without judicial process, should forfeit his claim. In A.D. 389 it was provided that one who seized property under a bona fide claim of right should, if the claim was well founded, forfeit his right, and if it was unfounded should give back the property and its value as well. This penalty applied to land as well as moveables. The actions by which these rules were enforced were no doubt ordinary proprietary actions, at any rate so far as the forfeiture of property was concerned. Whether, where the claim was well founded, the heres of the wrongdoer was equally liable does not appear; presumably he was not, and he could hardly have been liable to penalty in the other case.

References

*Includes material taken from , a work now in the public domain. {{Italic title Delict Roman law