Editing Praetor (section)

===Actions===
In an ''actio'', which was civil, the Praetor could either issue an ''interdictum'' (interdict) forbidding some circumstance or appoint a ''iudex'' ([[judge]]). Proceedings before the praetor were technically said to be ''in iure''. At this stage, the Praetor would establish a ''formula'' directing the ''iudex'' as to the remedy to be given if he found that certain circumstances were satisfied; for instance, "Let X be ''iudex''. If it appears that the defendant ought to pay 10,000 sesterces to the plaintiff, let the ''iudex'' condemn the defendant to pay 10,000 sesterces to the plaintiff. If it does not so appear, let the plaintiff absolve him."{{sfn|Nicholas|1975|p=24}} After they were handed over to the ''iudex'', they were no longer ''in iure'' before the Praetor, but ''apud iudicem''. The ''iudicium'' of the ''iudex'' was binding. By the time of [[Diocletian]], however, this two-stage process had largely disappeared, and the Praetor would either hear the whole case in person or appoint a delegate (a ''iudex pedaneus''), taking steps for the enforcement of the decision; the ''formula'' was replaced by an informal system of [[pleadings]].{{sfn|Nicholas|1975|p=28}}

During the time of the [[Roman Republic]], the Urban Praetor allegedly issued an annual [[edict]], usually on the advice of [[jurist]]s (since the Praetor himself was not necessarily educated in the law), setting out the circumstances under which he would grant remedies. The legal provisions arising from the Praetor's Edict were known as ''ius honorarium''; in theory the Praetor did not have power to alter the law, but in practice the Edict altered the rights and duties of individuals and was effectively a legislative document. In the reign of [[Hadrian]], however, the terms of the Edict were made permanent and the Praetor's ''de facto'' legislative role was abolished.{{sfn|Nicholas|1975|pp=22–26}}