Definition
Latin: "in the name of a penalty." A phrase used to describe a stipulated sum imposed not as compensation for actual loss, but as a coercive or punitive device to compel or restrain a particular act.
The term operates in two distinct legal contexts:
1. Civil law (Roman and civilian tradition): A legacy left nomine pene is a testamentary bequest designed to coerce the heir — to compel performance of some act, or to deter the heir from doing something the testator wished to prevent. The legacy was not a gift in the ordinary sense; its purpose was disciplinary. Under Roman law, such legacies occupied a recognized but disfavored category, subject to special rules about enforceability and the capacity of the burdened party.
2. Common law (lease and contract practice): In English and American common law, nomine pene refers to a sum stipulated in a lease or covenant that the lessee or covenantor will forfeit upon breach — for example, failing to pay rent on a specified day, or performing acts expressly prohibited by the lease (such as plowing up pasture land). The sum is not calculated to reflect anticipated damages; it is inserted to discourage breach through financial penalty.
---
Common Confusion
Nomine pene clauses are closely related to — and frequently confused with — liquidated damages clauses and penalty clauses. The distinctions matter. A liquidated damages clause is an agreed pre-estimate of actual loss and is generally enforceable in common law jurisdictions. A penalty clause, by contrast, is designed to punish breach rather than compensate, and English courts have long scrutinized or refused to enforce such clauses. A nomine pene stipulation sits squarely in the penalty category: its purpose is coercive, not compensatory. Researchers working in historical lease disputes or civil law materials should not assume these terms are interchangeable. Courts applying the liquidated damages / penalty distinction may analyze a nomine pene clause differently depending on whether the jurisdiction follows classical English penalty doctrine or a modern approach that tolerates legitimate deterrent provisions.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is a term of art that appears most commonly in three research contexts: Roman and civilian legal texts (particularly commentary on Justinian's Institutes), historical English lease disputes, and nineteenth-century American treatises on landlord-tenant law and contract damages.
Corpus researchers should watch for several traps. First, the phrase is almost always Latinized and abbreviated inconsistently across sources — nomine poenae, nomine pœnæ, and nomine pene all appear, reflecting differences in orthographic convention and period. Search strategies must account for this variation. Second, the term drops sharply out of common legal usage after the nineteenth century. Modern courts discussing the same concept use "penalty clause" or "forfeiture provision" without invoking the Latin. A researcher tracing the history of penalty doctrine forward into modern case law will need to pivot vocabulary.
Third, the civil law and common law applications are doctrinally distinct, and historical dictionaries do not always clearly separate them. Burrill's entry, for instance, moves between the civilian testamentary context and the common law leasehold context in a single definition. Researchers working in mixed jurisdictions (Louisiana, Quebec, pre-codification civilian jurisdictions) need to identify which tradition the source is drawing from, because the enforceability rules differ.
Finally, there is a meaningful connection to the broader penalty/liquidated damages debate. Courts in nineteenth-century England and the United States increasingly refused to enforce nomine pene provisions in leases where the stipulated sum was disproportionate to any conceivable loss. Understanding this term historically illuminates how modern penalty clause doctrine developed.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary is the primary English-language legal dictionary source for this term, and its treatment is accurate but compressed. Burrill correctly identifies both the civil law testamentary usage (citing Justinian's Institutes 2.20.36) and the common law lease application. The Institutes passage is the foundational civilian authority and confirms that Roman law recognized testamentary nomine pene legacies as a distinct category with dedicated rules.
What Burrill does not address — and what researchers should note — is the enforceability question. By the time Burrill's dictionary was compiled, English equity courts had developed a robust doctrine refusing to enforce penalty clauses in leases where relief against forfeiture was available. The dictionary defines the term's meaning but is silent on the significant doctrinal controversy surrounding its enforcement. No other standard historical dictionary in the Law Mind corpus (Black's early editions, Bouvier's) gives this term a dedicated entry, suggesting it was already receding from active common law vocabulary by the mid-nineteenth century and was treated primarily as a civil law or historical curiosity.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The term has the most continued legal relevance in civilian or mixed jurisdictions, where testamentary penalty provisions remain an active doctrinal category. In common law jurisdictions, the concept survives but the Latin label does not — modern courts address the same clause type under penalty and forfeiture doctrine without using the phrase nomine pene.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Contracts — Adequacy of Consideration and Nominal Consideration (The Law Mind Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia)
Damages and Remedies in Tort — Nominal Damages in Tort (The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia)
---