Definition
In Roman and civil law, and carried into early English legal usage, estimatio means valuation, rating, or the monetary assessment of a thing or an injury. The term encompasses the formal process of placing a pecuniary value on property, a loss, or an offense for purposes of legal reckoning — whether in a proceeding for damages, a division of an estate, or the determination of a penalty.
The concept appears in two principal contexts:
1. Valuation of persons or property. Estimatio fixes a monetary equivalent for what is being assessed. In Roman law, this extended to the market value of slaves, goods, and interests in land. The famous maxim — corpus humanum liberum non recipit æstimationem (the body of a free person does not admit of valuation) — marks the outer limit of the doctrine: the person of a free man or woman stood outside the reach of estimatio altogether. Freedom was legally incommensurable with money.
2. Assessment of the gravity or degree of an offense. Estimatio was also used to characterize the nature and weight of a past wrong, particularly in determining what sanction or liability it warranted. The maxim estimatio præteriti delicti ex postremo facto nunquam crescit (the rating of a past offense never increases from a subsequent act) encodes a principle of temporal integrity in penal assessment: the character of an earlier wrong is fixed at the time it was committed and cannot be aggravated by later conduct.
---
Common Confusion
Estimatio is sometimes loosely treated as synonymous with damnum (loss or harm) or with the award of damages itself. The distinction matters. Estimatio is the act or method of valuation — the process of reckoning — not the harm, not the remedy, and not the sum ultimately awarded. Confusing the valuation mechanism with the underlying loss or the resulting judgment obscures how Roman and civil-law sources approach questions of assessment methodology versus substantive liability.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working with Roman-law sources, civil-law jurisdictions, or early English common-law materials will encounter estimatio most often in three contexts: (1) texts dealing with the valuation of property in inheritance and partition proceedings; (2) materials addressing damages methodology, particularly in the civilian tradition where the assessment framework carries its own procedural logic distinct from common-law jury-damages practice; and (3) maxims and brocard collections, where the two quoted maxims here appear repeatedly and are often cited without context.
The maxim corpus humanum non recipit æstimationem is a frequent presence in early English cases touching the value of human life, bodily autonomy, and the non-assignability of personal rights. Researchers should note that Hobart 59 — cited by Burrill — is a real English reporter (Sir Henry Hobart, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, early seventeenth century), and the maxim appears in that context as a statement about why certain claims could not be reduced to a money valuation. This is not simply philosophical: it had procedural consequences for what forms of action could lie and what remedies were available.
The second maxim, on the immutability of past-offense ratings, is significant for research into recidivism doctrine, cumulative sentencing, and the civil-law treatment of continuing wrongs. It cautions against retroactive aggravation of an assessed penalty based on subsequent conduct — a principle with analogs in debates about enhanced sentencing and habitual-offender statutes.
Burrill's entry is incomplete as printed; the second maxim is cut off before its illustration or application is given. Researchers relying on Burrill alone should seek the full broard in civilian sources or in more complete maxim collections.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill is the primary source here, and his entry, though truncated, accurately represents the core civilian usage. He correctly identifies the dual register of the term — valuation of things, and assessment of offenses — and supplies the two most consequential maxims associated with estimatio in early English legal writing.
What Burrill does not provide is the procedural architecture within which estimatio operated in Roman law proper: the actio æstimatoria (the action for valuation in sale of goods), the litis æstimatio (the valuation of the subject matter of a suit, which in Roman procedure could determine the form of the remedy), or the role of the judge in æstimatio proceedings as distinct from a jury in common-law damages trials. Researchers moving from Burrill into Roman-law sources or civil-law commentators (Justinian's Digest, or later civilians such as Pothier) will find the concept considerably more elaborated.
The phrase æstime in the Law French gloss Burrill supplies is a useful bridge term for researchers working in Anglo-Norman legal records, where valuation concepts carry into property and feudal contexts.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Estimatio as a technical term is native to Roman and civil law and has no direct common-law equivalent, though the underlying concept of judicial or formal valuation is universal. Its direct operational significance is greatest in jurisdictions with a civil-law heritage — Louisiana, Quebec, and comparative-law research generally. In common-law research it appears principally in historical and maxim contexts.
---