Definition
A Latin adverbial term meaning "by the same" or "in the same manner." In legal usage, *eodem* appears most often as a shorthand reference to the same authority, instrument, section, or principle previously cited or discussed—functioning similarly to *idem* but with a stronger connotation of manner or method rather than mere identity. It is encountered primarily in older common law pleadings, judicial arguments, and legal treatises where Latin shorthand was standard practice.
The term is most substantively encountered in the maxim *eodem modo quo quid constituitur, dissolvitur*: "In the manner in which a thing is constituted, it is dissolved." This principle holds that the method required to create a legal obligation, estate, or instrument is generally the same method required to extinguish it. A contract requiring writing to be formed requires writing to be rescinded; a right created by deed is ordinarily discharged by deed.
Common Confusion
*Eodem* is closely related to *idem* (the same thing or person) but is not interchangeable. *Idem* points to identity of subject matter; *eodem* emphasizes sameness of manner, means, or instrument. In citation shorthand, both were used to avoid repetition, and historical sources sometimes blur the distinction. Researchers encountering either term in older materials should read context carefully to determine whether the reference is to a subject or a method.
Why It Matters in Research
The term itself is a minor navigational marker in pre-modern legal texts—when you see *eodem* in a pleading or argument, it signals a reference back to the same authority, section, or party just named, and should prompt you to identify what antecedent it tracks. Misreading it can cause a researcher to miss that two passages are discussing the same source or actor.
The maxim *eodem modo quo quid constituitur, dissolvitur* has considerably more doctrinal weight and appears across contract, property, and procedural contexts. When researching questions about the formal requirements for terminating agreements, discharging easements, releasing obligations, or revoking instruments, this principle may surface as the implicit or explicit rationale in both early English and American authorities. It is particularly relevant in historical property research involving conveyances, releases, and surrenders, where courts applied strict formal equivalence between creation and dissolution.
Researchers working in equity will find that courts of equity sometimes softened this maxim by allowing less formal methods of rescission or release than those required for creation, treating the rule as a common law formality rather than an immutable principle. That doctrinal tension is worth watching for when tracing case development.
The term appears infrequently enough in modern legal writing that encountering it is itself a signal: you are likely working with a pre-20th century source, an early American report, or a text with strong civilian or common law Latin influence.
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary gives *eodem* its expected Latin gloss—"by the same; by the said"—and cross-references *idem*, confirming that contemporaneous legal usage treated the two as near-synonyms for citation purposes while acknowledging they were not identical. Burrill cites 2 Lord Raymond 888 for the shorthand usage and 6 Coke 53b for the maxim, the latter being a foundational common law authority on the formal symmetry between creation and dissolution of legal obligations.
The maxim attributed through Coke reflects a deep structural commitment of early common law to formalism: legal relations were constituted and dissolved through prescribed acts, and the form of dissolution mirrored the form of creation. Burrill's entry, though brief, captures both the citation function and the maxim function without conflation. Historical dictionaries generally do not explore the equity qualification, which is a gap researchers should keep in mind when the maxim arises in chancery or equity materials.