Definition
A Latin term from the civil law tradition meaning money told, counted, or paid by tale — that is, money identified and transferred by numerical count rather than by weight or measure. In Roman law, numerata pecunia described coined money delivered as a specific, enumerated sum, distinguishing it from money valued or transferred in bulk. The concept appears in the context of mutuum (the loan of fungibles) and condictio (personal actions to recover a sum certain), where the counted nature of the money helped establish what was owed and whether a debt had been discharged.
Common Confusion
Numerata pecunia should not be confused with nummata terrae, which appears directly adjacent in Burrill. Despite surface similarity (both are Latin, both appear in the same dictionary entry), the two terms are entirely unrelated: numerata pecunia concerns money counted by tale; nummata terrae is an old land measure. The adjacency in Burrill's dictionary is alphabetical, not conceptual.
Why It Matters in Research
Numerata pecunia is a term of art encountered almost exclusively in treatises and materials drawing on the civil law, Roman law, or early English common law sources that borrowed Roman categories. Researchers are most likely to encounter it in:
— Historical treatises on contracts, particularly discussions of loan and debt in which the distinction between money counted, money weighed, and money measured carried legal significance for how an obligation was formed and proved.
— Bracton and similar bridge texts between Roman and English common law. Burrill and Black both cite Bracton fol. 35, situating the term in the foundational literature of English common law as it absorbed civilian concepts.
— Actions for debt or condictio-type proceedings in early English practice, where pleaders or commentators used Roman vocabulary to frame the nature of the obligation.
The term has no active role in modern common law pleading or statutory law. Its value to researchers is almost entirely historical and interpretive: it signals that a source is reasoning within a civilian or mixed tradition, and it sheds light on how courts and scholars in earlier periods thought about the nature of monetary obligations. Do not expect to find it in modern case law; when it appears, it marks the text as drawing on Roman or early English civil-law learning.
Note also the proximity to nummata terrae (a measure of land thought to contain an acre) in Burrill's entry. The two terms are unrelated in meaning but adjacent in the alphabet and in older dictionaries. Researchers scanning historical dictionaries should not conflate them.
Historical Dictionary Support
All four source dictionaries agree precisely on the core definition: money told or counted, money paid by tale. The verbal formula is nearly identical across Black's (both editions), Burrill, and Rapalje & Lawrence, reflecting their shared reliance on the Institutes of Justinian (Inst. 3, 24, 2) and Bracton (fol. 35) as the authoritative sources. No divergence in meaning appears across the sources, which itself signals that the term was treated as settled Roman law vocabulary rather than a term that evolved through common law usage.
What the historical dictionaries do not supply is substantive context: none explains why the distinction between counted money and weighed money mattered, or how the concept functioned within the broader structure of Roman contract and obligation. For that context, researchers should consult the Institutes directly or secondary treatments of Roman mutuum and condictio in civil law scholarship. Burrill's entry is notable for appending nummata terrae immediately after, without any explanatory break — a layout that can confuse readers consulting the original.