Definition
Quod vi aut clam (Latin: "what is done by force or stealth") is a Roman law term designating a class of possessory interdict — a praetorian remedy — directed against a person who had made alterations or constructions on land by force or secretly, in violation of the possessor's right to object. The interdict required the wrongdoer to restore the land to its prior condition or to compensate for the damage caused. It was not a remedy for dispossession of the land itself, but specifically for unauthorized works done upon it — excavations, constructions, demolitions, or similar physical changes — accomplished either by open force (vi) or by clandestine means (clam) to avoid the possessor's opposition.
The two triggering circumstances — force and stealth — are treated as alternatives. Force meant the work was done over the express or implied protest of the possessor. Stealth meant the work was done without the possessor's knowledge, in circumstances where the wrongdoer anticipated that objection would be raised if knowledge were had. The interdict thus captured any deliberate evasion of the possessor's right to prevent the work.
The action lay within one year of the discovery of the act, and after that year it was transformed into a perpetual in factum action for the value of the damage. It ran against the person who performed the act, and also — to the extent of enrichment — against successors.
---
Common Confusion
Quod vi aut clam is frequently conflated with the possessory interdicts unde vi and uti possidetis, but the distinctions are material. Unde vi addressed forcible dispossession — the wrongful ejection of a possessor from land. Uti possidetis protected the current state of possession as between two parties contesting it. Quod vi aut clam addressed neither dispossession nor the contest between rival claimants, but the specific wrong of unauthorized physical alteration of land. A researcher working with Roman law sources or civilian treatises who encounters possessory interdict language must distinguish which type of wrong — dispossession, possession dispute, or unauthorized works — the source is addressing.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears primarily in materials touching Roman law, civil law jurisdictions, and scholarly treatments of possessory remedies. Several navigational points matter:
First, Burrill's entry is a redirect — "See Vi aut Clam" — which reflects a common organizational choice in older dictionaries of shelving the operative content under the shorter form. Researchers working through historical legal dictionaries should expect that quod vi aut clam and vi aut clam function as interchangeable headwords across different sources, and must check both forms.
Second, the term surfaces in English legal history primarily in scholarly and comparative contexts rather than in common law practice. The common law developed its own possessory and nuisance-adjacent remedies without importing the Roman interdict directly, so a researcher encountering quod vi aut clam in an English-language treatise is almost certainly reading comparative law, equity scholarship, or historical jurisprudence — not a live common law action.
Third, the civilian tradition — particularly Scottish, Louisiana, Quebec, and South African law — carries possessory interdict doctrine forward in ways that bear closer structural resemblance to the Roman original. Researchers working in mixed-jurisdiction or civilian legal systems should treat quod vi aut clam as a doctrinal ancestor to locate, not merely a historical curiosity.
Fourth, the accompanying maxim in Burrill's entry — Quomodo quid constituitur, eodem modo dissolvitur — is a distinct legal maxim (a thing is dissolved the same way it is formed) that appears in the same entry by proximity, not by conceptual connection to the interdict. Do not treat this maxim as a gloss on quod vi aut clam; it belongs to a separate thread of general contract and obligation doctrine.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary routes the reader to "Vi aut Clam" without reproducing the substantive definition at the quod vi aut clam headword, which limits the entry's independent value. This is a common pattern in Burrill for Latin phrases where the operative term is the abbreviated form. The fuller doctrinal content — the elements of force versus stealth, the annual limitation, the scope of restoration — must be reconstructed from Roman law sources, principally the Digest (Book 43, Title 24), which provides the juristic exposition of the interdict in detail.
Civilian and Romanist dictionaries and treatises generally agree on the core structure: a restitutory remedy, limited to unauthorized works on land, predicated on either force or stealth, with a one-year limitation for the primary action. The points of scholarly divergence concern the meaning of clam — specifically, whether stealth is judged subjectively (what the wrongdoer intended to conceal) or objectively (what a reasonable possessor would have wanted to know) — and the precise scope of who qualifies as possessor for purposes of standing to bring the interdict. These are technical debates confined largely to Romanist scholarship and civilian doctrine; they rarely surface in Anglo-American legal research except in comparative treatments.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The interdict as a live procedural remedy is a feature of Roman and civil law systems, not common law. In mixed jurisdictions such as Scotland, Louisiana, and South Africa, possessory protection of land against unauthorized works has civilian roots traceable to this interdict, though modern statutory and procedural forms have substantially displaced the Roman terminology in practice. Anglo-American researchers will encounter quod vi aut clam almost exclusively in historical, comparative, or equity scholarship.
---