Definition
In Roman and civil law, an action to recover triple damages — that is, three times the value of a thing wrongfully taken, withheld, or obtained. The action arose in specified circumstances where the law imposed a treble-value penalty as both punishment for the defendant's conduct and compensation exceeding the plaintiff's actual loss.
The actio in triplum was not a general remedy but a designated penalty action tied to particular wrongs recognized under Roman law, most notably in contexts involving theft and related delicts. It represents one of several graduated penalty actions in the civil law tradition — alongside the actio in duplum (double damages) and actio in quadruplum (fourfold damages) — each calibrated to the gravity of the offense and whether the theft or wrong was manifest or non-manifest.
---
Common Confusion
Researchers may encounter actio in triplum alongside actio in duplum and actio in quadruplum in the same sources and may assume these terms are interchangeable intensifiers. They are not. Each represented a distinct legal action with its own conditions of availability. The fourfold action (in quadruplum) typically applied to manifest theft (furtum manifestum) or to certain praetorian actions, while the triple-value action applied to other specified circumstances. Conflating these undermines accurate reading of civil law sources and any common law texts that borrowed or adapted the terminology.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term surfaces primarily in two research contexts: (1) scholarly and treatise treatment of Roman law delicts, particularly the law of theft (furtum) and its graduated penalty structure; and (2) historical English common law sources, including Bracton, where Roman civil law concepts were imported, adapted, or cited for analogical authority.
The Bracton citation (fol. 103a) is significant. Bracton's De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae drew heavily on Roman law, and references to actio in triplum in that work signal a moment where the civilian tradition was being consciously threaded into the fabric of early English legal reasoning. Researchers working in the history of English law must be careful not to assume that because Bracton cites a Roman penalty action, an equivalent English cause of action existed in practice with the same contours. The borrowing was often conceptual rather than procedural.
In the Law Mind corpus, this term most commonly appears in connection with Roman law delict materials, civil law treatise discussions of penalty actions, and historical treatments of Bracton. It is unlikely to appear in post-medieval common law cases as a live cause of action. A researcher encountering the term in a 19th-century source is almost certainly reading comparative or historical legal commentary rather than a living procedural form.
The Institutes reference (Inst. 4.6.21, 24) anchors the term in Justinian's Institutes, making it part of the foundational civil law canon. Any Law Mind materials touching on Justinianic private law will be the relevant corpus neighborhood.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the essential identification: an action for the triple value of a thing, sourced to Justinian's Institutes and to Bracton. The entry is concise and serviceable but offers no elaboration on the conditions giving rise to the action, its relationship to other penalty actions, or the distinction between manifest and non-manifest theft that governed which multiplier applied.
What Burrill does usefully accomplish is the dual citation — civil law (Institutes) and English common law (Bracton) — which itself signals the term's transitional status between the two traditions. No other major historical English legal dictionary in the Law Mind corpus provides a competing or supplementary entry for this term, which is consistent with its character as a term of art drawn from the civil law and appearing in English sources chiefly as a learned reference rather than as a term of practice.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This action belongs to Roman and civil law traditions and has no direct counterpart in modern common law jurisdictions as a standalone cause of action. Treble damages as a concept persist in modern law (antitrust, certain consumer protection statutes, some IP contexts), but they descend through statutory and equitable development rather than from actio in triplum as a continuous form.
---