In Roman law, () was a legal action by which the plaintiff demands that the defendant return a thing that belongs to the plaintiff. It may be used only when the plaintiff owns the thing, and the defendant has wrongly claimed or assumed possession of the same thing, and is currently impeding the plaintiff's possession of the thing.
The plaintiff could also institute an (a personal action) to punish the defendant. If the thing could not be recovered, the plaintiff could claim damages from the defendant with the aid of the (a personal action). With the aid of the (a personal action), the plaintiff could claim damages from the defendant.
The term originated in ancient Roman law. It was derived from the , and therefore was available only to Roman citizens.
The function of rei vindicatio remains the same in most modern legal systems as it was in ancient Rome. However, Roman law was much more particular about the specification of the "thing". A plaintiff could not have won a case without specifying the thing in question.
At a theoretical level, Roman jurists identified three kinds of "thing":
Two law schools in Rome, the Sabinian school and the Proculian school, remained influential from the late Republic throughout the classical period. Most modern s consider these schools to be influenced to some extent by Greek philosophy. They say that the Sabinian school was the student of Stoicism, while the Proculian school followed Aristotle or Peripateticism. Greek influence is especially evident in classical Roman thinking on accession and specification. Sabinians, following Stoicism, argued that in these areas hyle âÂÂsubstanceâ supersedes eidos âÂÂformâÂÂ. Proculians countered that eidos is the decisive factor for a fate of a thing.