Definition
In early common law, *oapitale* referred to a stolen thing itself, or alternatively the monetary value of that stolen thing. The term appears in medieval legal contexts as a technical descriptor for the subject matter of a theft — functioning either as a reference to the physical chattel taken or as a measure of its worth for purposes of restitution or punishment.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is a relic of medieval Anglo-Norman and Latin legal vocabulary and will appear, if at all, only in very early common law texts, Year Books, or glossaries derived from them. Researchers encountering *oapitale* in a historical source should treat it as a term of art specific to pre-modern theft and property law, likely appearing in contexts concerning the recovery of stolen goods or the calculation of damages and penalties owed to a victim.
The term is not operative in any modern legal system. Its research value is almost entirely historical and philological: it helps orient a reader within a body of archaic pleading or legal commentary, particularly sources descended from or citing Blount's *Glossographia* (1656), which is the authority Black's cites. Researchers using Law Mind's corpus for medieval or early modern English legal history — especially in connection with larceny, theft, restitution, or the law of personal property — may encounter this term in glossary apparatus or footnotes rather than in operative legal text.
Do not expect this term in American legal sources at any period. It does not appear in equity practice, statutory law, or common law pleading after the early modern period even in England.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) gives the entirety of its entry to two propositions: that *oapitale* means a stolen thing, or the value of it, and attributes the definition to Blount. Thomas Blount's *Nomo-Lexicon: A Law-Dictionary* (1670) is the likely proximate source, as Blount was among the first English legal lexicographers to systematically collect archaic and Latin-derived legal terms. No other major historical legal dictionary in the Law Mind corpus appears to carry this term, suggesting it was recognized as sufficiently obscure even by early modern standards to warrant collection only in specialized glossaries.
The dual definition — the thing itself or its value — reflects a practical ambiguity common in early theft law, where recovery could be in specie (the actual chattel) or in equivalent monetary compensation. This duality tracks the broader structure of medieval English theft remedies and is consistent with how cognate terms functioned across Latin-influenced legal texts of the period.
---