Kan
Categories: Property
Definition (1910 Edition)
797, 51 Pac. 290, 39 LL. R. A. 860;
343, 46 Pac. 700. It ig not in itself an “estate” in the technical sense, and therefore not the separate property or estate of the wife. Cizek v. Cizek, 69 Neb. 797, 99 N.
377, 1 Pac. 104; State Treasurer vy. Railroad Co., 28 N J. Law, 26.
84; Conway v. Jefferson, 46 N. H. 526;
580, 28 Pac. 606, 27 Am. St. Rep. 309;
94, 55 Pac. 342.
248, 1 Pac. 556; Burroughs v. De Couts, 70 Cal. 361, 11 Pac. 734.
315, 10 Pac. 827 ; hs v. Babcock, 123
395, 6 Pac. 575, 52 Am. Rep. 533.
82; Smith v. Mayo, 9 Mass. 63, 6 Am.
486; Lewis v. Chapman, 16 N. Y. 369; State v. Avery, 113 Mo. 475, 21 S. W. 198; State v. Witt, 34 Kan. 488, 8 Pac. 769;
107, 26 Pac. 401.—Gross negligence. In the law of bailment. The want of slight diligence. The want of that care which every man of common sense, how inattentive soever, takes of his own property. The omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to alae of uae own prop-
248, 65 Pac. 243; Civ. Code Cal. § 3480. A private nuisance was originally defined as anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments of another. 3 Bl. Comm. 216. But the modern definition includes any wrongful act which destroys or deteriorates the property of another or interferes with his lawful use or enjoyment thereof, or any act which unlawfully hinders him in the enjoyment of a common or public right and causes him a special injury. Therefore, although the ground of distinction between public and private nuisances is still the injury to . the community at large or, on the other hand, to a single individual, it is evident that the same thing or.act may constitute a public nuisance and at the same time a private nuisance, being the latter as to any person who sustains from it, in his person or property, a special injury different from that of the general public. See Heeg v. Licht, 80 N. Y. 582, 36 Am.
406; Lassiter v. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 136 N. C. 89,.48 8, EB, 643.—Object of a statute. The “object” of a statute is the aim or purpose of the enactment, the end or desi
723, 25 Pac. 233, 10 LL R. A. 616.— Original process. See PROCESS. . writ. See WRIT.—Single original. An orig- _inal instrument which is executed singly, and not in duplicate.
421, 19 Am. Rep. 99; In re Hoffen’s
139, 71 Pac. 249.
329, 72 Pac. 781; Butts v. Long, 94 Mo. App. 687, 68 S. W. 754.
232.
629.
449, 46 Pac. 715; State v. Bergman, 37
(or Kans.). Kansas;—Kansas Re ports.
343, 46 Pac. 700. It ig not in itself an “estate” in the technical sense, and therefore not the separate property or estate of the wife. Cizek v. Cizek, 69 Neb. 797, 99 N.
377, 1 Pac. 104; State Treasurer vy. Railroad Co., 28 N J. Law, 26.
84; Conway v. Jefferson, 46 N. H. 526;
580, 28 Pac. 606, 27 Am. St. Rep. 309;
94, 55 Pac. 342.
248, 1 Pac. 556; Burroughs v. De Couts, 70 Cal. 361, 11 Pac. 734.
315, 10 Pac. 827 ; hs v. Babcock, 123
395, 6 Pac. 575, 52 Am. Rep. 533.
82; Smith v. Mayo, 9 Mass. 63, 6 Am.
486; Lewis v. Chapman, 16 N. Y. 369; State v. Avery, 113 Mo. 475, 21 S. W. 198; State v. Witt, 34 Kan. 488, 8 Pac. 769;
107, 26 Pac. 401.—Gross negligence. In the law of bailment. The want of slight diligence. The want of that care which every man of common sense, how inattentive soever, takes of his own property. The omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to alae of uae own prop-
248, 65 Pac. 243; Civ. Code Cal. § 3480. A private nuisance was originally defined as anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments of another. 3 Bl. Comm. 216. But the modern definition includes any wrongful act which destroys or deteriorates the property of another or interferes with his lawful use or enjoyment thereof, or any act which unlawfully hinders him in the enjoyment of a common or public right and causes him a special injury. Therefore, although the ground of distinction between public and private nuisances is still the injury to . the community at large or, on the other hand, to a single individual, it is evident that the same thing or.act may constitute a public nuisance and at the same time a private nuisance, being the latter as to any person who sustains from it, in his person or property, a special injury different from that of the general public. See Heeg v. Licht, 80 N. Y. 582, 36 Am.
406; Lassiter v. Norfolk & C. R. Co. 136 N. C. 89,.48 8, EB, 643.—Object of a statute. The “object” of a statute is the aim or purpose of the enactment, the end or desi
723, 25 Pac. 233, 10 LL R. A. 616.— Original process. See PROCESS. . writ. See WRIT.—Single original. An orig- _inal instrument which is executed singly, and not in duplicate.
421, 19 Am. Rep. 99; In re Hoffen’s
139, 71 Pac. 249.
329, 72 Pac. 781; Butts v. Long, 94 Mo. App. 687, 68 S. W. 754.
232.
629.
449, 46 Pac. 715; State v. Bergman, 37
(or Kans.). Kansas;—Kansas Re ports.
Source: Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition (1910) — Public Domain.
UK commentary and modern updates are original additions. This entry is for educational
reference only and does not constitute legal advice.