Definition
Cimando is a Latin legal term of historical usage appearing in older common law authorities. Based on the available source material, the term does not carry an independent substantive definition in the surviving dictionary record — the entries under this heading in both editions of Black's redirect to or associate the term with the maxim *Non decipitur qui scit se decipi* ("He is not deceived who knows himself to be deceived"), drawn from 5 Coke 60. The term appears to have functioned as a heading or cross-reference marker in early legal compilations rather than as a standalone doctrinal concept.
The maxim with which it is associated means: a party who has actual knowledge that they are being deceived cannot claim legal protection on the basis of that deception. Consent or awareness defeats a fraud or misrepresentation claim rooted in the same facts.
---
Common Confusion
Researchers encountering "cimando" in historical sources may mistake it for a substantive legal term with its own defined doctrine. It appears instead to be a classificatory or organizational heading — possibly a corruption, abbreviation, or Latinized form used in manuscript or early print indexes — that points toward the *scienti* line of maxims governing fraud and misrepresentation. Do not treat the heading as equivalent to the maxim itself; the maxim carries the operative legal content.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The principal research value here is navigational. A researcher who encounters "cimando" in a historical digest, case reporter, or pleading index and attempts to trace it as an independent legal principle will likely reach a dead end. Both editions of Black's treat it as a pass-through to the associated maxim, suggesting the term had limited independent circulation even in the period when Black's was compiled.
The operative doctrine — that knowledge of a deception precludes a legal claim based on that deception — is well-attested under other headings. Researchers should pivot immediately to: the maxim *Non decipitur qui scit se decipi*; the related principle *volenti non fit injuria*; and the doctrine of fraudulent misrepresentation as developed in equity and common law, particularly in the context of scienter and reliance requirements.
In the Law Mind corpus, entries touching fraud, misrepresentation, and the requirements of actionable deceit will be more productive search targets than the term "cimando" itself.
The 2nd edition's entry compounds the ambiguity by beginning with what appears to be a truncated cross-reference ("See DE NON DE—"), suggesting the editors themselves treated the entry as indexing material rather than substantive doctrine. This is a known artifact of early legal dictionary compilation, where Latin headings were sometimes carried forward from manuscript sources without independent verification of their meaning or currency.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both editions of Black's reproduce the same content under this heading: the maxim *Non decipitur qui scit se decipi* attributed to 5 Coke 60, with the translation "He is not deceived who knows himself to be deceived." The 2nd edition adds an apparent cross-reference stub ("See DE NON DE—"), likely pointing toward a related entry on *de non decimando* or a similar heading, though the entry is truncated in the available source.
Neither edition offers a definition of "cimando" as such. The historical dictionaries agree — by omission — that the term does not stand independently. What they preserve is the associated maxim, which belongs to a recognized family of common law and equity principles holding that a party's own knowledge defeats claims rooted in ignorance or deception. The 5 Coke citation is to Coke's *Reports*, a foundational early modern common law authority, lending the maxim genuine doctrinal pedigree even if the heading under which it appears here is obscure.
Historical sources outside Black's do not appear to have given "cimando" sustained independent treatment, reinforcing the conclusion that it functioned as a localized index or organizational term rather than a term of art with broad circulation.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The associated maxim applies across common law jurisdictions as a general equitable and common law principle. Its modern expression — particularly in fraud, misrepresentation, and estoppel contexts — varies in formulation by jurisdiction but the underlying idea (that knowing consent to or awareness of a deception bars relief) is broadly recognized.
---