Definition
Lex Hostilia (Latin: "the Hostilian law") is a Roman statute authorizing legal actions for theft to be brought on behalf of persons who could not personally prosecute their claims due to absence in service of the state. Specifically, the law permitted theft actions (actiones furti) to be initiated in the name of captives held by an enemy or of individuals absent on public business, circumstances under which Roman procedural rules would otherwise have barred suit. The law is attributed to the consulship of A. Hostilius and A. Atilius and is referenced in Justinian's Institutes.
Common Confusion
Lex Hostilia is occasionally conflated with other Roman leges of similar name or period. It should not be confused with broader Roman legislative instruments governing relations with enemies (hostes) in the law of war, despite the surface resemblance between "Hostilia" (the consul's name) and "hostis" (enemy, foreigner). The law's subject matter is procedural standing in theft actions, not the law of armed conflict or the treatment of enemy persons as a class.
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in discussions of Roman private law procedure and the law of theft (furtum). Researchers consulting historical sources on Roman law will encounter it in commentaries on the Institutes of Justinian, specifically the title dealing with theft actions (Inst. 4.10). Its primary significance is procedural: it represents an early Roman recognition that rigid standing rules could produce unjust results when a potential litigant was disabled by public duty or enemy captivity, and the law carved out an exception accordingly.
For corpus researchers, three navigational points matter. First, Burrill's entry contains a corrupted Latin fragment ("Nullus balivus de cætero ponat alisons") that appears to be a stray intrusion from an entirely different source — likely a passage from Magna Carta or a related medieval English text — and does not belong to the entry on Lex Hostilia. Treat it as a transcription or typesetting error in the historical source and do not rely on it as part of the Roman law definition. Second, the term has essentially no common law footprint; researchers encountering it outside a Roman law context should verify that the reference is not to a different statute or a metaphorical use. Third, because Lex Hostilia concerns procedural standing rather than substantive rights, researchers working on comparative or historical standing doctrine may find it useful as an early precedent for representative or substitute prosecution.
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the sole entry among the shelf sources and supplies the essential facts: the law's Roman origin, the consular attribution, and its operative effect of enabling theft suits for those absent on state business or held captive. Burrill cites Justinian's Institutes (4.10, pr.) and Calvin's Lexicon (Compl. De Leg. Romanis), both legitimate reference points for Roman law research. The entry is brief and does not elaborate on the law's relationship to broader Roman procedural theory or to the actio furti as a civil remedy. No other shelf source addresses this term, and no common law dictionary development of the concept is present in the corpus. Researchers requiring fuller treatment should consult Gaius's Institutes and the Digest directly, where the principle of substituted standing in cases of public absence receives more thorough exposition.
Jurisdictional Note
Lex Hostilia is a term of Roman law only. It has no operative force in any modern common law or civil law jurisdiction, though comparative law scholars and historians of procedure may cite its principle when tracing the development of representative standing or third-party litigation rights.