Definition
A Latin adjective meaning tame or domesticated, as opposed to wild. In legal usage, *domitz* describes animals that have been reduced to a domesticated state and are therefore capable of being the subject of absolute private property. The classification of an animal as *domitz* (rather than *ferae naturae*, or wild by nature) determined what kind of ownership interest a person could hold in that animal under the common law.
---
Common Confusion
DOMITZ vs. FERAE NATURAE: These two Latin classifications form a binary under the common law of property in animals. An animal classified as *domitz* supports absolute ownership — the owner retains full property rights regardless of whether the animal strays or escapes. An animal classified as *ferae naturae* (wild by nature) supports only a qualified or possessory ownership that may be lost if the animal escapes and returns to its natural liberty. Researchers should not conflate *domitz* with *mansuetae naturae*, a related but distinct category describing wild-natured animals that have been tamed or habituated to human presence but are not domesticated by species. Some historical sources use these classifications inconsistently.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in historical common law property discussions and is rarely encountered in modern American legal practice as a live term of art. Researchers working in early property law, animal law history, or livestock disputes in colonial and nineteenth-century sources will encounter it as a threshold classification: establishing that an animal was *domitz* was foundational to asserting absolute ownership and, critically, to bringing an action in trover or trespass for its unlawful taking.
The classification carries downstream consequences in the corpus. Cases and treatises discussing liability for animal damage, straying livestock, or theft of domestic animals often rest implicitly on the *domitz* / *ferae naturae* distinction without stating it explicitly. A researcher who does not recognize the underlying framework may miss the doctrinal logic of older decisions.
Modern animal law has largely displaced this framework through statutory schemes governing livestock, domestic animals, and wildlife, but the *domitz* classification persists in academic literature on the historical foundations of property law. It also surfaces in comparative law discussions contrasting common law approaches with civil law traditions.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) defines *domitz* concisely as "Tame; domesticated; not wild," noting its application to domestic animals in which a man may have an absolute property, with a cross-reference to Blackstone's *Commentaries* (2 Bl. Comm. 391). Blackstone's treatment remains the primary doctrinal source for this classification in the Anglo-American tradition. Blackstone divides animals into those *domitz naturae* and those *ferae naturae* and explains that absolute property subsists in the former class from the moment of their birth, while property in the latter exists only during actual possession.
Historical legal dictionaries do not develop the term beyond this threshold definition. None engages with the boundary cases — animals that occupy an intermediate position, such as bees, deer kept in a park, or fish in a pond — which were worked out in English case law rather than definitional literature. Researchers relying solely on dictionary sources will therefore have an incomplete picture of how courts actually applied the *domitz* classification to disputed animals.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The *domitz* / *ferae naturae* framework was received into American common law from English sources and applied broadly in the nineteenth century. Its practical significance today varies by state, as most livestock and domestic animal questions are now governed by state statute. Researchers should check whether a given jurisdiction has codified or abrogated the common law classification.
---