Definition
Numerical characters used to express or represent numbers in written documents. In legal usage, the term refers specifically to the written symbols by which numerical values are conveyed, and the law historically drew a firm distinction between two types:
1. Roman figures: Numbers expressed through letters of the alphabet (e.g., MDCCLXXVI for 1776). Universally accepted in contracts, pleadings, and formal legal instruments.
2. Arabic figures: The ten digits of common modern usage (0–9), derived from the Arabic or Indian numeral system. Historically treated with suspicion in formal legal instruments due to the ease with which they could be altered or counterfeited.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Plural of figure — a general term for a number, numerical symbol, or written digit.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): A character representing a number; a numeral; also, the value or sum represented by such a character.
The gap between common and legal meaning is functional, not definitional. Ordinary usage treats Arabic figures as the natural and uncontroversial way to write numbers. Legal usage imposed a formal hierarchy: Roman figures were preferred or required in certain instruments precisely because they were harder to falsify. A modern researcher accustomed to treating all numerals as equivalent may not recognize why historical documents favored Roman notation in legal contexts or why courts voided instruments that used Arabic numerals to state sums.
Common Confusion
FIGURES vs. WORDS: A distinct and important companion rule required that sums in negotiable instruments, contracts, and indictments be stated in words rather than in either form of figures. Where the written words and the figures disagreed, the words typically controlled. Figures alone — particularly Arabic figures — were often insufficient to establish the amount on the face of an instrument. Researchers should not conflate the figures-vs.-Roman-numeral question with the separate figures-vs.-words rule; both operated simultaneously.
Why It Matters in Research
The practical significance of this term is almost entirely historical, but it creates real traps for researchers working with pre-twentieth-century legal documents.
First, authenticity and validity: Many jurisdictions held that a complaint, indictment, or contract stating a sum solely in Arabic figures was defective. A document stating a debt as "$500" could be challenged where one stating "five hundred dollars" or "D dollars" in Roman form would not. Researchers reviewing historical pleading records may encounter dismissals or demurrers on grounds that appear formal to modern eyes but were substantively important then.
Second, alteration doctrine: The suspicion of Arabic figures stemmed from fraud prevention. Courts recognized that altering "1" to "7" required only a simple pen stroke, whereas altering Roman numeral expressions was considerably harder. This doctrinal caution shaped how instruments were drafted and how courts evaluated challenged documents.
Third, jurisdictional variation in pleading rules: Anderson notes that some states prohibited Arabic figures in complaints and indictments except when setting forth copies of documents. Researchers working across jurisdictions must check local pleading requirements when evaluating historical instrument validity. A pleading that was valid in one state may have been formally defective in another solely on this basis.
Fourth, the term surfaces in corpus research in contexts beyond contract law: wills, deeds, receipts, and bills of exchange all carried similar conventions. When dating is at issue — as in questions of priority or statute of limitations — the form of numerical expression in the original instrument may bear on authenticity determinations.
Historical Dictionary Support
All four source dictionaries agree on the core distinction between Roman and Arabic figures and on the legal preference for Roman notation. Bouvier is the most substantive, noting that Roman figures "may be used in contracts and law proceedings, and they will be held valid," while Arabic figures "have been holden not to be sufficient to express the sum due on a contract." Anderson adds the practical gloss: the objection to Arabic figures is their susceptibility to alteration, and formal instruments were better dated and denominated in words.
Black's is characteristically terse, simply defining figures as "numerical characters by which numbers are expressed or written" without legal elaboration. Rapalje & Lawrence preserves the same basic rule and connects it to context in pleading, but the entry as preserved is fragmentary and partially runs into adjacent entries. Researchers using Rapalje & Lawrence should treat the figures entry with care for completeness.
None of the historical dictionaries fully addresses the transition period during which Arabic figures became standard practice despite older authority disfavoring them — a gap that matters when dating the shift in drafting conventions.
Jurisdictional Note
The rule against Arabic figures in formal instruments was not uniform. Some American states enforced it strictly in pleading; others treated it as a preference or allowed Arabic figures when accompanied by written words. English practice, reflected in Stephens' Commentaries (cited by Rapalje & Lawrence), was similarly cautious. Researchers should not assume that a case from one jurisdiction resolves the question for another.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia, torts_121: Defamation and Privacy Torts — Defamation — Public Figures (Gertz v. Robert Welch). Note: This cross-reference applies only to the distinct legal meaning of "public figures" in defamation law, which is an entirely separate usage of the word "figures" and is unrelated to the numeral-and-notation meaning addressed in this entry.