151.

c. 11, $1, art. 10; Pub. St. Mass. 1882,

242. All fours. Two cases or decisions which are alike in all material respects, and prey similar in all the circumstances afecting their determination. are said to be or to run on “all fours."—All the estate. The *" name given in England to the short clause in a conveyance or other assurance which purports to convey “all the estate, right, title, interest, claim, and demand” of the grantor, lessor. etc., in the property dealt with. Dav. Conv. 93

190; People v. St. Clair, 38 Cal. 187.

11, 4 Am. Dec. 17; Cooper v. Rankin, 5 Bin. (Pa.) 6138.

135, 10 N. E. 758, 59 Am. Rep. 65.

530; Hutchinson v. State, 36 Tex. 294.

356, 7 N. E. 776, 56 Am. Rep. 684;

144, 54 N. E. 490; People v. New York

1882, p. 1288.

264, 9 N. BE. 647; Foster v. New Orleans, 94 U. S. 246, 24 L. Ed. 122. The term is sometimes applied to commerce between ports of two fr states not lying on the same coast, e. g.,

323, 12 Am. Rep. 699.

35, 43 Am. Rep. 480; Russell v. Smith, 12 Adol. & El. 236; Martinetti v. McGuire, 16 Fed. Cas. 920; Fuller v. Bemis (C. C.) 50 Fed. 926.

235.

256; Martine v. Nelson, 51 Ill. 422; Douglass v. Com., 2 Rawle (Pa.) 264; Brown v. Hunn, 27 Conn. 334, 71 Am. Dec. 71; Me- Gary v. People, 45 N. Y. 160. :

256; Union Bank vy. Hill, 3 Cold. (Tenn.) 328.

1882, p. 1290; Code Ala. 1886, § 3701;

139, 938 Am. Dec. 142.

1, 12 N. BE. 401, 1 Am. St. Rep. 422,

501; Tomlinson v. Brittlebank, 4 Barn. & A. 632; Railway Co. v. McCurdy, 114 Pa. 554, 8 Atl. 230, 60 Am. Rep. 363.

535.—Give time. The act of a creditor in extending the time for the payment or satisfaction of a claim ‘beyond the time stipulated in the original contract. If done without the consent of the surety, indorser, or guarantor, it discharees him. Howell v. Jones, 1 Cromp. M. & R. 107; Shipman v. Kelley. 9 App. Div. 316, 41 N. Y¥. Supp. 339.—Give way. In the rules of navigation. one vessel is said to “give way” to another when she deviates from her course in such a manner and to such an extent as to allow the other to pass without altering her course. See Lockwood vy. Lashell, 19 Pa. 850.

494; Bell v. Ellis, 33 Cal. 625: People v. Roberts, 159 N. Y. 70, 53 N. EF. 685, 45 L. R. A. 126; Churton v. Douglas, 5 Jur. N. S. 890; Menendez v. Holt. 128 U. S. 514, 9 Sup.

472, 52 N. E. 530, 70 Am. St. Rep. 295; Baltimore & O. R. Co. y. Patterson,

pt. 2, c. 2, § 2, art. 1.

1902, p. 653, § 207.

377.—Judicial oath. One taken before an officer in open court, as distinguished from a “‘non-judicial” oath, which is taken before an officer ex parte or out of court. State v. Dreifus, 88 La. Ann. 877.—Judicial officer. A person in whom is vested authority to decide ‘eauses or exercise powers appropriate to a eourt. Settle v. Van Evrea, 49 N. Y. 284: People v. Wells, 2 Cal ood, 2

166, 47 N. E. 612; Hibbard v. Odell, 16 Wis. 685; Lusby v. Cobb, 80 Miss. 715, 82 South. 6 As to “next of kin,” see NExtT. —Kinsbote. In Saxon law. A composition or satisfaction id for killing a kinsman. Spelman.—Kinsfoelk. Kelations; those who are of the same family.—Kinsman. A man of the

340.

249.

323, 19 Am. Rep. 362; Turner v. Merchants’ Bank, 126 Ala. 397, 28 South. 469.— Mala praxis. Malpractice; unskillful management or treatment. Particularly applied l to the neglect or unskillful management of a physicia , surgeon, or apothecary. 3 Bl. Comm. 122.—Mala prohibita. Prohibited wrongs or offenses; acts which are made offenses by positive Jaws, and prohibited as such. 1 BI.

425; Green v. Hart, 1 Johns. (N. Y. net

378, 28 N. E. 206. This word is distinguished from “ancestors” in including only the immediate progenitors of the person, while the latter embraces his more remote relatives in the ascending line.

585.—Personal property. Froperty of & personal or movable nature, as opposed to yroperty of a local or immovable character such as Jand or houses,) the latter being called “real property.”” This term is also applied to the right or interest less than a freehold which a man has in realty. Boyd v. Selma, 96 Ala. 144, 11 South. 393, 16 L. R. A. 729; Adams v. Hackett, 7 Cal. 203; Stief v. Hart, 1 N.

245, 49 N. E. 87; Cubine v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 596, 73 S. W. 396; Hinrichsen y. Hinrichsen, 172 Ill. 462, 50 N. BE. 185;

40.

1882, p. 1295.

5, 29 N. EB. 638.—Stock association.

408.

264; peawerss ates Ina, Co. v. Gosaler, 96 U. 8. 645, 24 L. Ed. - Wallerstein v. Insurance Co., 3 Rob. (N. Y) 528.—Oonstractive total loss. In marine insurance. This occurs where the loss or injury to the vessel insured does not amount to its tota) disappearance or destruction, but where, although the vesgel still remains, the cost of repairing or recovering it would amount to more than its value when so repaired, and consequently the insured abandons it to the underwriters. See Insura ee ne Cee Ree eee

1882, p. 1297. .