NOMINA

Definition

The Latin plural of *nomen*, meaning "names." In legal usage, *nomina* refers collectively to names as identifying symbols or marks attached to persons, things, or legal rights. The term appears most often in maxims and doctrinal discussions about the function and sufficiency of names in legal instruments — deeds, pleadings, grants, and contracts — where the question arises whether a defective, mistaken, or missing name defeats an otherwise valid legal act. The core legal insight carried by the term is that names are tools of identification, not ends in themselves. A name designates; it does not constitute. If the person or thing can be sufficiently identified by other means, the name's inadequacy is not fatal.

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Plural of *nomen*; in everyday English primarily encountered in scientific nomenclature (binomial *nomina*) or discussions of Latin grammar. Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not separately listed; treated as the grammatical plural of *nomen* (name, noun). Editorial note: The gap here is not between common and legal meaning but between a grammatical term and a term of legal art. In legal contexts, *nomina* carries a specific doctrinal weight — it signals a body of maxim-based reasoning about when names matter and when they can be dispensed with. A researcher encountering the word in a common grammar context should not assume it carries this doctrinal freight.

Why It Matters in Research

Researchers encountering *nomina* in historical legal texts are almost always in the presence of maxim-based argumentation about the sufficiency of identification. The term does not appear as a standalone legal concept but as the operative word in a cluster of Latin maxims that courts and treatise writers cited when resolving disputes over mistaken names in instruments, misnomers in pleadings, or defective descriptions in grants. Three maxims dominate the corpus and are frequently cited together: - *Nomina sunt notæ rerum* — Names are the marks of things. - *Nomina sunt symbola rerum* — Names are the symbols or signs of things. - *Nomina significandorum hominum reperta sunt* — Names were invented for the purpose of designating persons; if the person can be known by any other means, the name's form does not matter. The practical payoff of this maxim cluster was significant: courts used it to save instruments from failure on technical naming grounds when the intended party or subject could be identified from context. A researcher working on historical pleading practice, conveyancing disputes, or the law of misnomer will find *nomina* as the entry point into this reasoning pattern. Trap for researchers: Because *nomina* appears embedded in maxims rather than as a term defined on its own, it is easy to overlook in index searches. Search for the maxims themselves — *notæ rerum*, *symbola rerum* — rather than the word *nomina* alone when canvassing historical sources. Corpus connection: The maxims referencing *nomina* bridge several bodies of doctrine — evidence (what constitutes sufficient identification), pleading (misnomer and abatement), and property (certainty of description in deeds). A single citation to *nomina sunt notæ rerum* may therefore appear in treatises on each of these fields without cross-referencing the others.

Historical Dictionary Support

Burrill's Law Dictionary treats *nomina* as the straightforward Latin plural but uses it primarily as the vehicle for presenting the governing maxims. Burrill quotes *nomina sunt notæ rerum* with attribution to Coke (11 Co. 20b) and *nomina sunt symbola rerum* from Branch's Principia. The third maxim — *nomina significandorum hominum reperta sunt* — is presented with the doctrinal gloss that identification by other means satisfies the naming requirement. What Burrill's treatment does not do is synthesize the practical litigation context in which courts applied these maxims. The dictionary entries record the maxims and their sources but leave the researcher to locate the pleading and conveyancing cases where they did operative work. For that synthesis, treatises on pleading and conveyancing from the same period are necessary complements. No significant divergence exists across the historical dictionaries that include the term; *nomina* is treated consistently as a vehicle for maxim citation rather than as an independent doctrinal concept.

Jurisdictional Note

The maxims carried by *nomina* were received into both English common law courts and early American practice. Their continued vitality in modern pleading is limited — modern rules of civil procedure generally address misnomer and amendment directly — but the maxims remain relevant in interpreting historical instruments and in the occasional originalist or common-law argument.

Related Terms