Definition
A Latin adjective meaning "private" or "privy," used in Roman and common law texts to describe that which belongs to individuals rather than to the state or the public. PRIVATUM does not function as a standalone legal term of art but as a modifier appearing in several maxims and compound phrases that carry distinct legal significance. The most common formations are:
1. PRIVATUM JUS — Private law; that branch of law governing relations between private individuals, as distinguished from public law (jus publicum). The distinction traces to Justinian's Institutes (Inst. 1, 1, 4), which divided law into public (quod ad statum rei Romanae spectat) and private (quod ad singulorum utilitatem).
2. PRIVATUM COMMODUM PUBLICO CEDIT — "Private good yields to public." The interest of an individual must give way to the public good. Appears in Jenkins's Centuries (Jenk. Cent. p. 223, case 80).
3. PRIVATUM INCOMMODUM PUBLICO BONO PENSATUR — "Private inconvenience is compensated by public benefit." A companion maxim holding that where private hardship results from an act serving the public good, the public benefit offsets the private burden. Appears in Jenkins's Centuries (Jenk. Cent. p. 85, case 65) and Broom's Legal Maxims.
4. PRIVATUM CONCILIUM — "Privy council." The private or confidential council of the sovereign, distinguished from larger deliberative bodies. Noted in Hale's Analysis, section iii.
Common Confusion
PRIVATUM is sometimes confused with PRIVATUS (the substantive form, meaning "a private person") and with PRIVATUM JUS taken wholesale as a synonym for "private law" in the modern curricular sense. The historical usage is narrower: privatum jus in the Roman sources was a classification within natural and civil law, not a reference to the modern common law curriculum division between public and private law subjects. Researchers should not assume that historical citations to privatum jus map cleanly onto contemporary distinctions between, for example, contract law and administrative law.
Why It Matters in Research
PRIVATUM is a gateway term for the two most durable maxims organizing the tension between individual rights and state authority in common law reasoning: that private interests yield to public necessity, and that public benefit offsets private harm. These maxims appear across centuries of legal writing in contexts ranging from eminent domain to nuisance to public health regulation. Researchers working in Law Mind sources should be aware of several navigational points.
First, the maxims attached to PRIVATUM are cited inconsistently across the historical dictionaries. Black's first and second editions differ slightly on the page reference for PRIVATUM INCOMMODUM (p. 85 vs. p. 83), a discrepancy that signals reliance on intermediary sources rather than direct consultation. Burrill omits the Broom citation entirely. Researchers tracing these maxims should go to Jenkins's Centuries and Broom's Legal Maxims directly rather than relying on the dictionary citations as authoritative.
Second, PRIVATUM JUS as a concept connects to the foundational public/private law divide that runs through nearly all historical legal classification systems. Whenever a historical source invokes the public/private distinction without defining its terms, PRIVATUM JUS and its counterpart JUS PUBLICUM are the conceptual anchors.
Third, PRIVATUM COMMODUM PUBLICO CEDIT is a precursor reasoning structure for what modern Anglo-American law addresses through eminent domain, police power doctrine, and takings analysis. Historical sources using this maxim are not invoking constitutional law as we now understand it; they are invoking a common law principle of priority between private and public interest that predates constitutional takings frameworks.
Fourth, PRIVATUM CONCILIUM (privy council) is historically significant in English administrative and constitutional law but is catalogued separately in most dictionaries under COUNCIL or PRIVY COUNCIL. Researchers who encounter PRIVATUM CONCILIUM in older texts should follow that cross-reference rather than treating it as a subcategory of PRIVATUM.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's first and second editions are substantially identical on PRIVATUM, differing only in minor typographical variations and a single page reference discrepancy for the INCOMMODUM maxim. Neither edition engages analytically with the terms; both function as glossaries for the Latin phrases rather than explanations of their doctrinal application.
Burrill's treatment is marginally richer in one respect: it adds PRIVATUM CONCILIUM with a citation to Hale's Analysis, which the Black's editions omit. This reflects Burrill's broader coverage of English constitutional and administrative terminology. Otherwise, Burrill similarly limits itself to translation and citation without doctrinal elaboration.
None of the three historical dictionaries addresses the tension between PRIVATUM COMMODUM PUBLICO CEDIT and the developing law of compensation for takings — a gap that becomes significant when reading 19th-century sources, which began to require that public benefit not merely offset but actually compensate for private loss. The maxim in its raw form, as stated in these dictionaries, is a statement of priority, not a statement that private loss goes uncompensated. Researchers should not read the maxim as authority for uncompensated takings.
Jurisdictional Note
The maxims associated with PRIVATUM have operated as general common law principles across English and American jurisdictions, but their weight in specific contexts varies significantly. American constitutional law has largely displaced the maxim-based reasoning with structured takings and due process doctrine. In English and Commonwealth jurisdictions, common law maxims retain somewhat greater direct citation authority in judicial reasoning.