Definition
A Roman law action for the partition of a hereditary estate (familia) among co-heirs. Where a deceased person's property devolved jointly upon multiple heirs — whether by testamentary disposition or intestate succession — and those heirs could not agree on a division, any co-heir could bring the actio familiae erciscundae to compel a formal judicial partition of the aggregate succession. The action also lay to enforce contribution among co-heirs toward necessary expenses incurred in maintaining or preserving the estate prior to partition.
The action was one of the classic Roman law actiones in rem scriptae with a double character: it operated both to divide the common property and to settle accounts among the heirs arising from the administration of the estate in the interim period.
---
Common Confusion
The term is frequently garbled in older printed sources — including some editions of Black's — appearing as "famillz erciscundz," "familiæ erciscundæ," or with varying ligatures and abbreviations. These are all corruptions or typographical variants of the same term. Researchers encountering unfamiliar spellings in historical digests or indices should not assume a distinct action; the referent is invariably the same partition proceeding.
Distinguish from the actio communi dividundo, which partitioned property held in common ownership (communio) among persons who acquired it by means other than inheritance — such as co-purchasers or co-donees. Familiae erciscundae applied specifically to co-heirs and the inherited estate as a whole. Also distinct from the actio finium regundorum, which addressed boundary disputes between neighboring landowners rather than partition of shared assets.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term surfaces almost exclusively in Roman law scholarship, civil law treatises, and comparative law commentary. It is not operative in Anglo-American common law; its appearance in Black's and similar dictionaries reflects the nineteenth-century practice of including Roman and civil law terms that American courts and lawyers encountered in treatises and equity practice.
Researchers will find the term most relevant in three contexts: (1) tracing the intellectual lineage of partition actions in civil law jurisdictions — Louisiana, Quebec, and the civilian-influenced systems of the American Southwest — where Roman law categories retained practical significance; (2) reading nineteenth-century equity scholarship that drew on Mackeldey, Pothier, and other civil law authorities to explain the equitable partition remedy; and (3) historical research into estate administration doctrine, where civilian concepts of co-heirship (as distinct from common law joint tenancy or tenancy in common) shaped legal argument.
The Black's entry directs researchers to Mackeldey's Roman Law (§ 499), which remains the standard secondary reference for the procedural details of the action. Any research tracing this term in depth should consult Mackeldey directly rather than relying on the compressed dictionary summary.
The phrase "aggregate succession of a familia" is significant: in Roman law, the familia encompassed not merely discrete assets but the entire patrimonial complex — debts, obligations, and rights included. This holistic conception differs from modern partition practice, which tends to operate asset by asset. That distinction matters when reading civil law commentators who use the Roman term to explain what appear to be anomalous results in partition accounting.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) provides the core entry: an action for partition of the aggregate succession of a familia among co-heirs, with the secondary function of enforcing contribution toward necessary expenses. The entry cross-references Mackeldey's Roman Law (§ 499) and Crabb's Common Law (p. 184) — the latter in connection with the adjacent entry on Familiares Regis, not with familiae erciscundae itself. Researchers should not infer that Crabb addresses the partition action.
Black's treatment is accurate but compressed. It does not address the procedural mechanics: the action was judged by an arbiter (not an ordinary iudex) who had broad equitable discretion to assign specific assets, impose equalizing payments (aestimationes), and settle interlocutory accounts between co-heirs. This arbitral character — closer to modern court-supervised partition than to a simple division order — is important context missing from the dictionary entry alone.
No substantive divergence exists among the historical dictionaries that include this term; the corpus is thin, and later compilers generally followed Mackeldey's account. The more significant gap is between what the dictionaries say and what primary Roman sources (Digest 10.2) reveal about the action's scope and procedural flexibility.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The action has no direct common law analog and is not recognized as a cause of action in any American or English jurisdiction. Its relevance to U.S. legal research is confined to Louisiana and other civil law jurisdictions where Roman law heritage informs the interpretation of partition statutes, and to historical and comparative scholarship.
---