Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

RlESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUM. RESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUlM. 987
ranlk, and be disqualified from being witnesses. s. 7.) According to tile old law the eompliInt must
judices, or senators. This is the Lex which was be made within one year.
commented on by the Jurists, whose expositions The application for a Restitutio could only be
are preserved in the Digest (48. tit. 11), and in the made to one who had Jurisdictio, either orioilal
Code (9. tit. 27). This Lex adopted some pro- or delegated, which flowed from the possession of
visions that existed in previous Leges, as for in- the Imperium; and it might, according to the cirstance that by which the money that had been im- cumrstances, be decreed by the Magistratus extra
properly retained could be recovered from those ordinem, or the matter might be referred to a
into whose hands it could be traced. (Cic. pro C. Judex. W5hen a Restitutio was decreed, each
IcRabir. Post. 4.) The Lex had been passed when party restored to the other what he had received
Cicero made his oration against Piso, B. C. 55. (Iz froln him with all its accessions and fruits, except
Pis. 21.) A. Gabinius was convicted under tiis so far as the fruits on one side might be set off
Lex. Many of its provisions may be collected against the interest of money to be returned on
from the oration of Cicero against Piso. Cicero the other side. All proper costs and expenses inboasts that in his proconsulship of Cilicia there curred in respect of the thing to be restored were
was no cost caused to the people by himself, his allowed. If the object of the Restitutio was a
legati, quaestor, nor any one else; he did not even right, the injured party was restored to his right;
demand from the people what the Lex (Julia) al- or if he had incurred a duty, he was released from
lowed him. (AdlAtt. v. 16.) the duty.
Under the Empire the offence was punishable The action for Restitutio might be maintained
with exile. (Tacit. Annal. xiv. 28, and the note of by the person injured, by his heredes, cessionarii,
Lipsius.) and sureties; but as a general rule it could only
In Clinton's Fasti IHellenici, the Lex Calpurnia be maintained against the person with whom the
is incorrectly stated to be the first law at Rome contract had been made, and not against a third
against Bribery at Elections. Bribery is AmaBITvS. person who was in possession of the thing which
(Sigonius de Judiciis, ii. c. 27; RPeis, Das Cri- was sought to be recovered, except when the actio
nzinalrecht der R;7uer,? p. 604. &c.; Rutdorf, Ueser for restitutio was an actio in rem scripta, or the indie Octavictnische Fordlel, Zedtsc/srst f'iir Geschicht. jured party had an actio in rem, or when the right
Recedsw. &c. xii p. 136.) [G. L.] which be had lost was a right in rem.
REPLICA'TIO. [AcTIo, p. 10.] The grounds of Restitntio were either those exREPOSITO'RIA. [CoENA, p. 307, b.] pressed in the Edict, or any good and sufficient
REPO'TIA. [MxATRIMo IuMI, p. 744, a.] cause: "item si qua alia mihi justa causa esse
REPU'DIUM. [DIvoITIUMr.] videbitur in integrum restituam, quod ejus per
IES. [DOMINsIUM.] Leges, Plebiscita, Senatusconsulta, Edicta, I)ecreta
RES JUDICA'TA. [JuDICATa ACTIO.] Principlum licebit." (Dig. 4. tit. 6. s. 1.)
RES MA'NCIPI. [DouiNIUMs.] The following are the chief cases in which a
RESCRIPTUM. [CONSTITUTIONES.] Restitutio might be decreed.
RESPONSA. [JURISCONSULTI.] The case of Vis et Metus. If a man did an act
RESTITU'TIO IN INTEGRUM, in the that was injurious to himself, through vis or metus,
sense in which the term will here be used, signifies the act was notfor that reason invalid, nor was it conthe rescinding of a contract or legal transaction so sidered that his assent was wanting (Dig. 4. tit. 2.
as to place the parties to it in the same position so 2. 2~ 5): but it was contra bonos mores to allow
with respect to one another which they occupied such an act to have legal effect. When a man had
before the contract was made or the transaction acted under the influence of force, or reasonable
took place. The Restitutio here spoken of is fear caused by the acts of another party, he had
founded on the Edict. If the contract or trans- an actio quod metus causa for restitution against
action is such as not to be valid according to the the party who was the wrongdoer, and also against
Jus Civile, this Restitutio is not needed; and it an innocent person who was in possession of any
only applies to cases of contracts and transaction, thing which had thus been got from him, and also
which are not in their nature or form invalid. In against the heredes of the wrongdoer if they were
order to entitle a person to the Restitutio, he must enriched by being his heredes (quantunz ad eos
have sustained some injury capable of being esti- pervenit). If he was sued in respect of the transmated, in consequence of the contract or transaction, action, he could defend himself by an exceptio
and not through any fault of his own; except in quod metus causa. The actio Quod Metus was
the case of one who is minor xxv annorum, who was given by the Praetor L. Octavius, a contemporary
protected by the Restitutio against the consequences of Cicero. (Compare Cic. in Vecrr. iii. 65, and Dig.
of his own carelessness. The injury also must be 4. tit. 2. s. 1.)
one for which the injured person has no other The case of Dolus. xWhen a man was frauduremedy. lently induced to become a party to a transaction,
The Restitutio may either be effected on the which was legal in all respects, saving the fraud,
complaint of the injured party, which would gene- he had his actio de dole malo against the guilty
rally be made after the completion of the trans- person and Ilis heredes, so far as they were made
action, or when he is sued by the other party in re- richer by the fraud, for the restoration of the thing
spect of the transaction and defends himself by an of which he had been defriauded, and if that was
Exceptio. The complaint as a general rule must not possible, for compensation. Against a third
be made within four years of the time of the injury party who was in bona fide possession of the thing,
being discovered, and of the party being capable he had no action. If he was sued in respect of the
of bringing his action; in the case of Minores the transaction. he could defend himself by the excepfour years were reckoned from the time of their tio doli mati. (Compare Dig. 4. tit. 3.)
attaining their majority. In the case of an Excep- The case of Minores xxv. annorum. A Minor
tio there was no limitation of time. (Cod. 2. tit. 53. could by himself do no legal act for which the