Definition
Interdicta (singular: interdictum) were procedural orders in classical Roman law issued by a magistrate — typically the praetor — commanding or prohibiting specific conduct in a dispute. They functioned as a form of provisional or summary relief, bypassing the ordinary formulary process to achieve an immediate legal result.
Unlike judgments rendered after full trial, interdicta were conditional commands: the praetor would issue the order, and if the party subject to it failed to comply or contested its basis, the matter would then proceed to a iudex for determination. In practical effect, many interdicta operated as final resolutions because parties complied rather than litigate further.
Interdicta were the Roman law's closest functional equivalent to the injunction in Anglo-American equity practice — a resemblance that shaped how early common law commentators understood and described them.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Roman law recognized interdicta by both their operative command and their subject matter.
By operative command, three forms were recognized:
1. Interdicta prohibitoria — forbade the doing of a specific act. These were purely restrictive orders, commanding a party to refrain from conduct (for example, prohibiting interference with another's possession).
2. Interdicta restitutoria — required the restoration of something already taken or disturbed. These were restorative in character and most closely resembled what equity would later call mandatory injunctions or orders for specific restitution.
3. Interdicta exhibitoria — required the production of a specific person or thing. These compelled a party to make something available for legal purposes, such as producing a slave whose status was in dispute, or presenting a person whose liberty was contested.
By subject matter, interdicta relating to possession of property were further divided into:
- Interdicta adipiscendae possessionis — for acquiring possession not yet held.
- Interdicta retinendae possessionis — for retaining possession currently held but disputed.
- Interdicta recuperandae possessionis — for recovering possession that had been lost.
The distinction between retaining and recovering possession carried procedural significance: the party whose possession was to be protected differed depending on which interdict applied, and the burden of proof shifted accordingly.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in civil law history, early equity jurisprudence, or comparative law will encounter interdicta most often in two contexts: as the acknowledged ancestor of injunctive relief in commentary bridging Roman and English law, and as a structural framework when reading civilian-influenced jurisdictions (Louisiana, Quebec, Scotland, South Africa) where interdicts remain live legal concepts.
The terminological overlap is a persistent trap. In modern Scottish and South African law, "interdict" is the operative word for what an English lawyer would call an injunction. Sources from these jurisdictions are not historical artifacts — they are current doctrine. A researcher reading a Scottish case using "interim interdict" is reading about contemporary provisional relief, not Roman antiquities.
In the American and English law tradition, interdicta appear almost exclusively as historical comparators. Equity treatises from the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries routinely grounded the jurisdiction of chancery in Roman law precedents, and interdicta provided the conceptual scaffolding. When Rapalje & Lawrence define interdicta as "the injunctions of English law," they are doing what centuries of equity writers did: translating Roman categories into common law terms to legitimize chancery practice.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry truncates at a critical point — the division of possession-related interdicta is cut off mid-sentence in the surviving text. Researchers relying solely on that source will miss the adipiscendae / retinendae / recuperandae tripartition, which is essential to understanding how Roman possessory doctrine worked and how it filtered into civilian property systems.
For researchers in Louisiana law specifically, the Roman possessory interdict lineage is not merely historical. Louisiana's possessory action traces directly to Roman interdicta retinendae and recuperandae possessionis through Spanish and French civilian intermediaries. Understanding the Roman source illuminates the structure and limitations of Louisiana's possessory action in ways that purely domestic analysis will miss.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence offer a compact and accurate three-part taxonomy — prohibitoria, restitutoria, exhibitoria — that reflects the standard civilian account. Their characterization of interdicta as "the injunctions of English law" is editorially useful but slightly misleading: interdicta were not injunctions in the technical sense of a court's equitable jurisdiction over a party's conscience, but rather magisterial commands conditional on compliance. The functional similarity is real; the doctrinal architecture differs.
Rapalje & Lawrence's entry appears to be truncated in the available text, cutting off mid-sentence at the possessory subdivision. This is a significant gap: the adipiscendae / retinendae / recuperandae tripartition was foundational to Roman possessory law and is well-attested in Gaius's Institutes and Justinian's Digest. Researchers should not treat the Rapalje & Lawrence entry as complete on possessory interdicta.
The broader historical dictionary tradition, including sources like Black's early editions and Bouvier's Law Dictionary, similarly treats interdicta as historical Roman law with a note to injunctions. None of the standard American law dictionaries develop the civilian lineage into modern mixed-jurisdiction systems — a gap that comparative law researchers will need to fill from specialist sources.
---
Jurisdictional Note
In Scotland and South Africa, "interdict" is current legal terminology for injunctive relief and carries no exclusively historical connotation. Researchers should not assume a source using "interdict" is discussing Roman or historical doctrine without confirming jurisdiction. Louisiana's civilian possessory action bears a structural relationship to Roman interdicta recuperandae and retinendae possessionis that differs materially from the possessory remedies available in common law states.
---