Definition
A Latin term from Roman civil law and carried into common law usage, meaning to be proper, available, or legally maintainable — most commonly used to describe whether a legal action or remedy lies in a given situation. The phrase *actio ei competit* translates as "an action lies for him" or "an action may be maintained by him," signaling that a party possesses a legally recognized right to bring a particular claim. In this sense, *competere* functions as a term of legal qualification: it answers whether a remedy is legally appropriate and available to a specific person under specific circumstances, not merely whether a court has jurisdiction to hear it.
---
Common Confusion
*Competere* is easily confused with *competence* and *competency* as those terms are used in modern legal practice — particularly jurisdiction, evidentiary competence, or a party's legal capacity. The overlap is linguistic but not substantive. *Competere* addresses the availability and propriety of a remedy or action (does this action lie?), while competence in modern usage addresses a court's authority to hear a matter or a witness's qualification to testify. A researcher encountering *actio ei competit* in a historical source should resist reading it as a jurisdictional statement.
---
Why It Matters in Research
*Competere* appears primarily in civil law treatises, early common law texts, and pleading manuals where authors translated or adapted Roman law concepts for English legal audiences. It surfaces in discussions of whether a particular form of action — assumpsit, trover, trespass, and so on — was the correct and available vehicle for a plaintiff's grievance. In the era of common law forms of action, the question of whether an action *competit* was not merely rhetorical; choosing the wrong form of action was fatal to a claim.
Researchers working in pre-nineteenth-century sources should treat *competere* and *actio ei competit* as technical markers indicating the author is addressing the threshold question of action-fitness, not jurisdiction in the modern sense and not merits. The phrase often appears in the negative — *actio non competit* — to explain why a particular remedy fails as a matter of law. This is especially common in civil law digests, treatises on Roman law adapted for American or English readers, and older equity texts where civil law influence was pronounced.
Because *competere* is Latin and functions as a term of art within Latin phrases rather than as a standalone English legal term, it rarely appears in modern American or English legal writing outside of historical quotation. A researcher who encounters it in a nineteenth-century digest or encyclopedia should read the surrounding phrase carefully: the subject of the verb (who the action lies *for*) and the predicate (which action, and against whom) carry the legal weight.
The term also connects to broader concepts of standing and justiciability, though those modern doctrines carry constitutional and procedural dimensions that *competere* by itself does not invoke. The conceptual lineage is useful for intellectual history research but should not be mapped mechanically onto modern doctrine.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill defines *competere* concisely and accurately: "to be proper, as a legal remedy; to lie, as an action," with the illustrative phrase *Actio ei competit* meaning "an action lies for [may be maintained by] him." This entry captures the term's essential function well. Burrill's treatment is brief, as appropriate for a Latin maxim-level entry, but researchers should note that it situates the term in both civil and common law traditions, which signals the term's dual heritage and its appearance across both lines of legal literature.
What Burrill does not address — and what no single dictionary entry for a Latin phrase of this kind typically covers — is the procedural context that gave *competere* its practical bite. In the forms-of-action system, the question of whether an action *competit* was intertwined with the entire structure of common law pleading: a plaintiff had not just to have a grievance but to have a grievance that fit a recognized and available writ. Historical sources that deploy *competere* are often working through exactly that fit-analysis, and Burrill's gloss, while accurate, underrepresents how consequential the inquiry was.
---