Definition
In Roman and civil law, a term denoting an arbitrator who had been formally received or chosen by the parties to resolve a dispute between them. The word captures the consensual act of acceptance — the arbitrator was not appointed by a court but selected and received by the parties themselves. The relationship and obligations arising from that acceptance were governed by the actio recepticia, a civil law action available against an arbitrator who had undertaken to decide a matter but then refused or failed to do so.
Why It Matters in Research
Receptus is a term confined almost entirely to civil law and Roman law sources. Researchers will encounter it in works on the history of arbitration, continental private law, and comparative law treatments of dispute resolution. It does not appear as an operative term in common law jurisdictions, which developed arbitration through distinct procedural channels without adopting the civil law vocabulary.
The principal research trap is Rapalje & Lawrence: the printed entry for receptus appears to be corrupted or mis-set, breaking mid-definition into unrelated content about recitals in deeds and other instruments. Researchers relying on that source alone will find no usable definition. Black's (both editions) provides the consistent and reliable statement of the term.
When tracing the development of arbitration doctrine, receptus is a gateway term to the Digest's treatment of arbitral obligations. The Digest citation (4, 8) covers the title De receptis: qui arbitrium receperunt — "those who have received [the office of] arbitrator" — and is the foundational primary source. The Codex Justinianus citation (2, 56) provides the later imperial legislation on the subject. Researchers working in the civil law tradition will find these sources reproduced and analyzed in treatises on Roman procedure and in historical comparative law scholarship.
The term is also relevant to understanding why early modern civilian jurists distinguished the arbitrator as receptus — one bound by the acceptance — from a mere amicable compositor or mediator who had undertaken no enforceable obligation. That distinction has residual importance in comparative arbitration scholarship and in jurisdictions whose arbitration law descends from civilian roots.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (1st edition) and the second edition are in complete agreement: receptus is the name given to an arbitrator in the civil law, derived from the fact of having been received or chosen by the parties. Both editions cite Dig. 4, 8 and Cod. 2, 56 without elaboration. The entries are brief and identical in substance, reflecting that by the time Black's was compiled the term had no live doctrinal significance in American practice and required only a historical identification.
Rapalje & Lawrence is effectively unusable on this entry. The text begins correctly — "In the civil law, an arbi—" — and then cuts away to unrelated material about recitals in deeds. Whether this represents a printing error, a pagination defect, or a compilation failure in the surviving source cannot be determined from the text alone. Researchers should treat it as a gap source for this term and rely on Black's.
None of the historical dictionaries discuss the actio recepticia, the enforcement mechanism that gave the term its legal bite, or the distinction between receptus and related civil law figures. For that level of detail, primary sources in the Digest and secondary works on Roman arbitration are necessary.
Jurisdictional Note
Receptus has no operative meaning in common law systems. In civil law jurisdictions that codified Roman arbitration concepts, the underlying doctrine has been absorbed into modern arbitration statutes without retaining the classical vocabulary. The term appears today primarily in historical and comparative legal scholarship rather than in any active legal system.