Definition
Restitutoria interdicta (singular: interdictum restitutorium) are a class of Roman law interdicts by which the praetor ordered the restoration of a thing, person, or condition to its prior state. Where prohibitory interdicts commanded that something not be done, and exhibitory interdicts commanded that something be produced or displayed, restitutoria interdicta commanded affirmative action: the defendant was required to undo a disturbance and return matters to the position they occupied before the wrong occurred.
The classic application was the restoration of possession wrongfully disturbed. A party who had been forcibly ejected from land or had property seized could obtain a restitutorium interdictum requiring the wrongdoer to reinstate possession — not merely to stop further interference, but to actively reverse what had already been done.
Common Confusion
Restitutoria interdicta are one of three functional divisions of Roman interdicts. Researchers frequently encounter all three without a clear framework:
— Prohibitoria interdicta forbade a future act or continued interference.
— Restitutoria interdicta commanded restoration of a prior condition.
— Exhibitoria interdicta commanded production or exhibition of a person or thing.
The distinctions matter when reading Roman sources or civil law commentary: the remedy available, the procedural posture, and the burden imposed on the defendant differed across the three classes. A researcher who treats all interdicta as equivalent will misread the relief being sought and the obligation imposed.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Within the restitutoria class, Roman sources distinguish several well-known individual interdicts:
Unde vi — the principal possessory interdict commanding restoration of land from which a party was forcibly expelled (vi eiectus).
Unde vi armata — the aggravated form, applicable where expulsion was accomplished by armed force; this form carried no exception for the claimant's own prior defective possession.
De precario — applicable where a precarious possessor refused to restore property on demand.
De arboribus caesis — commanding restoration or compensation where trees were unlawfully cut.
These are the historically attested forms. The broader category of restitutoria interdicta could encompass other praetorian orders of restoration on the facts of a given case.
Why It Matters in Research
This term almost never appears in American or English common law sources. Its significance in the Law Mind corpus is almost entirely confined to three research contexts:
First, civil law jurisdictions and their historical antecedents. Louisiana, Quebec, and civilian systems derived from Roman law retained interdict procedure in modified form. A researcher working in Louisiana equity or property law will encounter interdict terminology that connects directly to the Roman categories, including the restitutory form.
Second, treatises on Roman law and its reception. Scholarly commentary from Bracton through the continental glossators and into the nineteenth-century civilian revival uses these categories as organizing concepts. Digest citations (particularly Digest 43) are the primary Roman sources.
Third, comparative and historical analysis of possessory remedies. The restitutoria interdicta are the Roman-law analog to common law ejectment and, more loosely, to the writ of restitution. Researchers tracing the doctrinal history of possessory relief across legal systems will need this term as a waypoint.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry for this term is a cross-reference stub ("See INTERDICTA") — it provides no independent content. Researchers relying solely on that source will find nothing useful under this heading and must consult the parent entry and Roman law sources directly.
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence (1883) provides only a bare cross-reference: "See INTERDICTA." The entry reproduced under this heading in the source material is in fact the entry for RESTRAIN — an apparent indexing artifact or editorial error in the source. No substantive definition of restitutoria interdicta appears in the Rapalje & Lawrence text at this location.
The silence is itself informative. American legal dictionaries of the nineteenth century treated Roman interdict classifications as specialized knowledge belonging to Roman law scholarship rather than to the common law practitioner's reference shelf. The term does not appear with any developed treatment in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (editions through 1883) or Black's Law Dictionary (1st ed. 1891) in a form that would serve as a primary definition. For substantive treatment, researchers must go to civilians: Justinian's Institutes (Book IV, Titles 15), the Digest (Book 43), and the commentary tradition including Gaius, Ulpian, and the later systematic expositions by Savigny and Puchta.
Jurisdictional Note
The term has no operative significance in common law jurisdictions. In Louisiana and other mixed civil law systems, restitutory interdict concepts survive in modified statutory form, but the Latin classification is not used in modern pleading. Research in historical Spanish and French colonial law sources touching North American territory may require familiarity with the Roman framework.