L. Ed
Categories: Contracts
Definition (1910 Edition)
420.
287.—Act of parliament. A statute, law, or edict, made by the British sovereign, with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons, in parliament assembled. Acts of parliament form the leges scripte, +. c., the written laws of the kingdom.—Act of providence. An accident against which ordinary skill and foresight could not guard. McCoy v. Danley, 20 Pa. 1, 57 Am. Dec. G80. Equivalent to “act of God,’ see supra.—Act of sale. In Louisiana law. An official record of a sale of property, made by a notary who writes down the agreement of the partics as stated by them, and which is then signed by the parties and attested by witnesses.
266; Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68, 72, 24 L. Ed 373.
872; Freeland vy. Pennsylvania R.
59. See AVULSION.
618; Hamilton Nat. Bank v. American
561.
709; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 431, 7
903; Hale v. Huston, 44 Ala. 138, 4
904; Clementi v. Goulding, 11 East, 244; Clayton v. Stone, 5 Fed. Cas. 999.
204.
421.
169; Chadwick v. Collins, 26 Pa. 139;
987; Slaughter v. Gerson, 18 Wall. 883, 20 L. Ed. 627; Hargous v. Stone, 5 N. Y. 82; Wissler v. Craig, 80 Va. 32; Wright v.
205; Historical Soc. v. Academy of
779; The Kirkhill, 99 Fed. 575, 39 ©.
288; Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546; Fuller v. Railroad Co., 31 Iowa, 207;
509: Wiliams v. Gold Hill Min. Co (C. GC.) 96 Fed. 464.—Commercial mark. In French law.. A trade-mark is specially or purely the mark of the manufacturer or producer of the article, while a “commercial” mark is that of the dealer or merchant who distributes the product to consumers or the trade. La Republique Francaise v. Schultz (C. C.) 57
765; State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 365, 9 Am. Dec. 534; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. 674; Barry v. Port Jervis, 64 App. Div. 268, 72 N. Y. Supp. 104.
326; In re Johnson’s Eaetate, 98 Cal. 531, 33 Pac. 460, 21 L. R. A. 880; Shorey v. Wyckoff, 1 Wash. T. 351.
985; Miller v. Railroad Co., 90 N. Y¥. a = ee Rep. 179; The Columbo, 6 Fed. as.
858.
168. l
389.
561.
978: Railroad Co. v. McArthur, 48
577.
282; Seeberger v. Mfg. Co., 157 U.
616; Adler v. Whitbeck, 44 Ohio St.
686; Brownell v. Greenwich, 114 N.
184; Galusha v. Sherman, 105 Wis. 263, 81 N. W. 495, 47 L. R. A. 417; Radich vy. Hutchins, 95 U. 8. 213, 24 L. Ed. 409;
709: Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 418. 7 I.
470; In re American Bank Note Co., 27 Mise. Rep. 572, 58 N. ¥. Supp. 276.
3683; Dealy v. U. S., 152 U. S. 539, 14
585.
648; 38 Story, Const. 212.
718; Portland Bank v. Apthorp, 12
1108; Scholey v. Rew, 23 Wall. 346, 23 L. Ed. 99; Hancock v. Singer Mfg. Co., 62 N. J. Law, 289, 41 Atl. 846, 42 L, R. A. 852.
494; Mitchell v. State, 42 Ohio St.. 386; State v. Lincoln, 49 N. H. 469.
2386; Forker v. Brown, 10 Misc. Rep. 161, 30 N. Y. Supp. 827; Madison Tp. v. Dunkle, 114 Ind. 262, 16 N. B. 508.—Fiduciary contract. An agreement by which a person delivers a thing to another on the condition
878; Fechheimer v. Baum (C. C.) 37
45; Thorn v. De Breteuil, 86 App.
361. The term “de facto,” as descriptive of a government, has no well-fixed and definite sense. It is, perhaps, most correctly used as signifying a government completely, though only temporarily, established in the place of the lawful or regular government, occupying its capitol, and exercising its power, and which is ultimately overthrown, and the authority of the fovea de jure re-established. Thomas v. aylor, 42 Miss. 651, 703, 2 Am. Rep. 625. A government de facto is a government that unlawfully gets the possession and control of the rightful legal government, and maintaius itself there, by force and arms, against the will of such legal government. and claims to exercise the powers thereof. Chisholm v. Coleman, 43
908; Hastings v. Turnpike Co., 9
585; 1 Bl. Comm. 41. And see Englich v. English, 82 N. J. Eq. 750.
615; De Longuemere v. New York
825. Those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family. Webster. A man’s family living together constitutes his household, though he may have gone to another state.
372.
233; Ex parte Levy, 43 Ark. 54, 51
858; Altschul v. Clark, 39 Or. 315, 65
1225.
271.—Joint debtors. Persons united in a joint liability or indebtedness —Joint lives. This expression is used to designate the duration of an estate or right which is granted to two or more persons to be enjoyed ‘so long as they both (or ali) shall live. As soom > as one dies, the interest determines. See Highley v. Allen, 8 Mo. App. 524.
464; Templeton v. Ferguson, 89 Tex. 47, 38 S. W. 329; Succession of Weigel, 17
339; Gilmer v. Gilmer. 42 Ala. 9;
6381.
712; U. 8S. v. Iron Silver Min. Co., 128 U. S. 678, 9 Sup. Ct. 195, 32 L. Kd. 571.
1136; Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. 570, 17
650; Stearns v. Russell, 85 Fed. 225, 29 Cc. C. A. 121; Wintermute v. Redington, 90
1064; Arnold v. Kennebec County, 93
112.—Mental defect. As applied to the qualification of a juror, this term must be understood to embrace either such gross ignorance or imbecility as practically disqualifies any person from performing the duties of a juror. Caldwell v. State, 41 Tex. 94— Mental reservation. A silent exception to the general words of a promise or agreement not expressed. on account of a general understanding on the subject. But the word has been applied to an exception existing in the mind of the one party only, and has been degraded to signify a dishonest excuse for evading or infringing a promise. Wharton.
662; Preston v. Exeter, 137 U. 604, 11 Sup. Ct. 162, 34 L. Ed. 788 In ie law of torts (and especially with reference to personal injury cases), the term means aS a ligence as evidences a reckless disreuman life, or of the safety of persons ime to its dangerous effects, or that entire want of care which would raise the presunption of a conscious indifference to the rights uivalent to an intentional
897.
830.
366; Moore v. State, 43 N. J. Law, 241, 39 Am. Rep. 558; Rich v, Chamberlain, 104 Mich. 436, 62 N. W. 584, 27 L. R. A. 573; Edwards v. Com., 78 Va. 39, 49 Am,
367; Williams v. Bankhead, 19 Wall. 571. 22 L. Ed. 184;
256.
691; Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 12 Sup. Ct. 375, 36 L. Ed. 103; Rogers v. Jacob, 88 Ky. 502, 11 S. W. 513; People v. Counts, 89 Cal. 15, 26 Pac. 612; Blair v.
550; Murray v. Allred, 100 Tenn. 100, 43 S. W. 355, 39 L. R..A. 249, 66 Am.
336.
997; Wright v. First Nat. Bank, 30 Fed.
1031.
1170; White v. Treat” (C. C.) 100 Fed. 291; Iowa v. McFarland, 110 U. 8S. 471,48
1071; Baker v. Hoag, 7 N. Y. 561, 59
341; Deshong v. Deshong, 186 Pa. 227, 40 Atl. 402, 65 Am. St. Rep. 855.
530.
420; Stewart v. Wyoming Cattle
439; Chicora Fertilizer Co. vy. Dunan, 91 Md. 144, 46 Atl. 347, 50 L. R. A. 401.
113.
449; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 464, 7 L. Ed. 481; Drake v. Gilmore, 52 N. ¥. 398; Philadelphia, ete., Iron Co. v. Chicago, 158 Ill. 9, 41 N. BE. 1102; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 405, 5 L. Ed. 257.
55; Keokuk & H. Bridge Co. v. People, 145 Ill. 506, 34 N. E. 482.
923; Lynch v. Rutland, 66 Vt. 570, 29 Atl. 1015.
805.—Trust-deed. (1) A species of mortgage given to a trustee for the purpose of securing a numerous class of creditors, as the bondholders of .a railroad corporation, with power to foreclose and sell on are of the payment. of their bonds, notes, or other claims. (2) In some of the states, and in the District of Columbia, a trust-deed is a security resembling a mortgage, being a conveyance of lands to trustees to secure the pa ment of a debt, with a power of sale upon default, and upon A trust to apply the net proceeds to paying the debt and. to turn over the surplus to the grantor.—Trust estate. This term may mean either the estate of the trustee,—that is, the legal title-—or the estate of the beneficiary, or. the eorpus of the property which is the subject _of the trust. See Cooper v. Cooper, 5 N. J. Eq. 9; Farmers’ L.'& ‘I. Co. v. Carroll, 5 Barb. (N. Y:) 643.—Trust ex maleficio. A species of: constructive trust arising out of some traud, misconduct,.ar breach of faith on the part of the person to be charged as trustee, which renders ft an equitable necessity that a trust should be implied. See Rogers v. Richards, 67 Kan. 706. 74 Pac. 253: Kent v. Dean, 128 Ala. 600, 30 South. 543;. Barry v. Hill, 166-Pa. 344, 31
287.—Act of parliament. A statute, law, or edict, made by the British sovereign, with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons, in parliament assembled. Acts of parliament form the leges scripte, +. c., the written laws of the kingdom.—Act of providence. An accident against which ordinary skill and foresight could not guard. McCoy v. Danley, 20 Pa. 1, 57 Am. Dec. G80. Equivalent to “act of God,’ see supra.—Act of sale. In Louisiana law. An official record of a sale of property, made by a notary who writes down the agreement of the partics as stated by them, and which is then signed by the parties and attested by witnesses.
266; Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68, 72, 24 L. Ed 373.
872; Freeland vy. Pennsylvania R.
59. See AVULSION.
618; Hamilton Nat. Bank v. American
561.
709; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 431, 7
903; Hale v. Huston, 44 Ala. 138, 4
904; Clementi v. Goulding, 11 East, 244; Clayton v. Stone, 5 Fed. Cas. 999.
204.
421.
169; Chadwick v. Collins, 26 Pa. 139;
987; Slaughter v. Gerson, 18 Wall. 883, 20 L. Ed. 627; Hargous v. Stone, 5 N. Y. 82; Wissler v. Craig, 80 Va. 32; Wright v.
205; Historical Soc. v. Academy of
779; The Kirkhill, 99 Fed. 575, 39 ©.
288; Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546; Fuller v. Railroad Co., 31 Iowa, 207;
509: Wiliams v. Gold Hill Min. Co (C. GC.) 96 Fed. 464.—Commercial mark. In French law.. A trade-mark is specially or purely the mark of the manufacturer or producer of the article, while a “commercial” mark is that of the dealer or merchant who distributes the product to consumers or the trade. La Republique Francaise v. Schultz (C. C.) 57
765; State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 365, 9 Am. Dec. 534; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. 674; Barry v. Port Jervis, 64 App. Div. 268, 72 N. Y. Supp. 104.
326; In re Johnson’s Eaetate, 98 Cal. 531, 33 Pac. 460, 21 L. R. A. 880; Shorey v. Wyckoff, 1 Wash. T. 351.
985; Miller v. Railroad Co., 90 N. Y¥. a = ee Rep. 179; The Columbo, 6 Fed. as.
858.
168. l
389.
561.
978: Railroad Co. v. McArthur, 48
577.
282; Seeberger v. Mfg. Co., 157 U.
616; Adler v. Whitbeck, 44 Ohio St.
686; Brownell v. Greenwich, 114 N.
184; Galusha v. Sherman, 105 Wis. 263, 81 N. W. 495, 47 L. R. A. 417; Radich vy. Hutchins, 95 U. 8. 213, 24 L. Ed. 409;
709: Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 418. 7 I.
470; In re American Bank Note Co., 27 Mise. Rep. 572, 58 N. ¥. Supp. 276.
3683; Dealy v. U. S., 152 U. S. 539, 14
585.
648; 38 Story, Const. 212.
718; Portland Bank v. Apthorp, 12
1108; Scholey v. Rew, 23 Wall. 346, 23 L. Ed. 99; Hancock v. Singer Mfg. Co., 62 N. J. Law, 289, 41 Atl. 846, 42 L, R. A. 852.
494; Mitchell v. State, 42 Ohio St.. 386; State v. Lincoln, 49 N. H. 469.
2386; Forker v. Brown, 10 Misc. Rep. 161, 30 N. Y. Supp. 827; Madison Tp. v. Dunkle, 114 Ind. 262, 16 N. B. 508.—Fiduciary contract. An agreement by which a person delivers a thing to another on the condition
878; Fechheimer v. Baum (C. C.) 37
45; Thorn v. De Breteuil, 86 App.
361. The term “de facto,” as descriptive of a government, has no well-fixed and definite sense. It is, perhaps, most correctly used as signifying a government completely, though only temporarily, established in the place of the lawful or regular government, occupying its capitol, and exercising its power, and which is ultimately overthrown, and the authority of the fovea de jure re-established. Thomas v. aylor, 42 Miss. 651, 703, 2 Am. Rep. 625. A government de facto is a government that unlawfully gets the possession and control of the rightful legal government, and maintaius itself there, by force and arms, against the will of such legal government. and claims to exercise the powers thereof. Chisholm v. Coleman, 43
908; Hastings v. Turnpike Co., 9
585; 1 Bl. Comm. 41. And see Englich v. English, 82 N. J. Eq. 750.
615; De Longuemere v. New York
825. Those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family. Webster. A man’s family living together constitutes his household, though he may have gone to another state.
372.
233; Ex parte Levy, 43 Ark. 54, 51
858; Altschul v. Clark, 39 Or. 315, 65
1225.
271.—Joint debtors. Persons united in a joint liability or indebtedness —Joint lives. This expression is used to designate the duration of an estate or right which is granted to two or more persons to be enjoyed ‘so long as they both (or ali) shall live. As soom > as one dies, the interest determines. See Highley v. Allen, 8 Mo. App. 524.
464; Templeton v. Ferguson, 89 Tex. 47, 38 S. W. 329; Succession of Weigel, 17
339; Gilmer v. Gilmer. 42 Ala. 9;
6381.
712; U. 8S. v. Iron Silver Min. Co., 128 U. S. 678, 9 Sup. Ct. 195, 32 L. Kd. 571.
1136; Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. 570, 17
650; Stearns v. Russell, 85 Fed. 225, 29 Cc. C. A. 121; Wintermute v. Redington, 90
1064; Arnold v. Kennebec County, 93
112.—Mental defect. As applied to the qualification of a juror, this term must be understood to embrace either such gross ignorance or imbecility as practically disqualifies any person from performing the duties of a juror. Caldwell v. State, 41 Tex. 94— Mental reservation. A silent exception to the general words of a promise or agreement not expressed. on account of a general understanding on the subject. But the word has been applied to an exception existing in the mind of the one party only, and has been degraded to signify a dishonest excuse for evading or infringing a promise. Wharton.
662; Preston v. Exeter, 137 U. 604, 11 Sup. Ct. 162, 34 L. Ed. 788 In ie law of torts (and especially with reference to personal injury cases), the term means aS a ligence as evidences a reckless disreuman life, or of the safety of persons ime to its dangerous effects, or that entire want of care which would raise the presunption of a conscious indifference to the rights uivalent to an intentional
897.
830.
366; Moore v. State, 43 N. J. Law, 241, 39 Am. Rep. 558; Rich v, Chamberlain, 104 Mich. 436, 62 N. W. 584, 27 L. R. A. 573; Edwards v. Com., 78 Va. 39, 49 Am,
367; Williams v. Bankhead, 19 Wall. 571. 22 L. Ed. 184;
256.
691; Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 12 Sup. Ct. 375, 36 L. Ed. 103; Rogers v. Jacob, 88 Ky. 502, 11 S. W. 513; People v. Counts, 89 Cal. 15, 26 Pac. 612; Blair v.
550; Murray v. Allred, 100 Tenn. 100, 43 S. W. 355, 39 L. R..A. 249, 66 Am.
336.
997; Wright v. First Nat. Bank, 30 Fed.
1031.
1170; White v. Treat” (C. C.) 100 Fed. 291; Iowa v. McFarland, 110 U. 8S. 471,48
1071; Baker v. Hoag, 7 N. Y. 561, 59
341; Deshong v. Deshong, 186 Pa. 227, 40 Atl. 402, 65 Am. St. Rep. 855.
530.
420; Stewart v. Wyoming Cattle
439; Chicora Fertilizer Co. vy. Dunan, 91 Md. 144, 46 Atl. 347, 50 L. R. A. 401.
113.
449; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 464, 7 L. Ed. 481; Drake v. Gilmore, 52 N. ¥. 398; Philadelphia, ete., Iron Co. v. Chicago, 158 Ill. 9, 41 N. BE. 1102; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 405, 5 L. Ed. 257.
55; Keokuk & H. Bridge Co. v. People, 145 Ill. 506, 34 N. E. 482.
923; Lynch v. Rutland, 66 Vt. 570, 29 Atl. 1015.
805.—Trust-deed. (1) A species of mortgage given to a trustee for the purpose of securing a numerous class of creditors, as the bondholders of .a railroad corporation, with power to foreclose and sell on are of the payment. of their bonds, notes, or other claims. (2) In some of the states, and in the District of Columbia, a trust-deed is a security resembling a mortgage, being a conveyance of lands to trustees to secure the pa ment of a debt, with a power of sale upon default, and upon A trust to apply the net proceeds to paying the debt and. to turn over the surplus to the grantor.—Trust estate. This term may mean either the estate of the trustee,—that is, the legal title-—or the estate of the beneficiary, or. the eorpus of the property which is the subject _of the trust. See Cooper v. Cooper, 5 N. J. Eq. 9; Farmers’ L.'& ‘I. Co. v. Carroll, 5 Barb. (N. Y:) 643.—Trust ex maleficio. A species of: constructive trust arising out of some traud, misconduct,.ar breach of faith on the part of the person to be charged as trustee, which renders ft an equitable necessity that a trust should be implied. See Rogers v. Richards, 67 Kan. 706. 74 Pac. 253: Kent v. Dean, 128 Ala. 600, 30 South. 543;. Barry v. Hill, 166-Pa. 344, 31
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.