Legal Definitions - in quibus infitiando lis crescit

in quibus infitiando lis crescit is a Latin legal principle originating from Roman law. It translates to "in which the suit increases by denial." This principle describes a situation where a defendant, by wrongfully denying a legitimate claim, faces a penalty that significantly increases the amount owed beyond the original claim. Instead of merely paying the initial debt or damages, the defendant could be ordered to pay a multiple of that amount – such as double, triple, or even quadruple – as a direct consequence of their unfounded denial. This served as a deterrent against frivolous defenses and encouraged prompt resolution of valid claims.

Here are some examples illustrating this principle:

• Example 1: Disputed Debt

  Imagine a scenario where a baker, named Titus, borrowed 50 silver coins from a merchant, Claudia, promising to repay them within a month. When the repayment date arrived, Claudia requested her money, but Titus, despite having the funds, falsely claimed he had already repaid the debt or that no such loan ever existed. If Claudia took Titus to court and successfully proved the legitimacy of the debt and the falsity of Titus's denial, the judge, applying the principle of in quibus infitiando lis crescit, might not just order Titus to pay the original 50 coins. Instead, as a penalty for his wrongful denial, Titus could be compelled to pay double or triple the amount, perhaps 100 or 150 coins. His denial directly caused the "suit to increase" beyond the initial claim.

• Example 2: Property Damage Claim

  Consider a situation where a farmer, Gaius, allowed his livestock to graze on a neighbor's land, causing 100 units of damage to the neighbor's crops. The neighbor, Livia, presented clear evidence of the damage and a reasonable estimate for the loss. Gaius, however, stubbornly denied any responsibility, claiming his animals were never on Livia's land or that the damage was pre-existing, even though he knew his livestock were at fault. If Livia pursued legal action and successfully demonstrated Gaius's culpability and his wrongful denial, the court, invoking in quibus infitiando lis crescit, could penalize Gaius. Instead of merely paying the 100 units for the crop damage, he might be ordered to pay 200 or 300 units, reflecting a multiple of the original damage as a penalty for his unmeritorious defense.

• Example 3: Unpaid Services

  Suppose a skilled artisan, Julia, completed a custom furniture commission for a wealthy patron, Marcus, for an agreed price of 200 gold coins. Upon delivery, the furniture perfectly matched the specifications. However, Marcus refused payment, falsely claiming the work was substandard and not what he had ordered, despite clear evidence to the contrary. If Julia sued Marcus for payment and proved that the furniture met the contract terms and Marcus's denial was baseless, the court could apply in quibus infitiando lis crescit. Marcus would not only be forced to pay the original 200 gold coins for the furniture but might also face an additional penalty, perhaps paying 400 gold coins (double the original amount) due to his wrongful refusal to honor the contract and his subsequent denial in court.