UNDIVIDED. An undivided right or title, or a title to an undivided portion of an mtate, is that owned by one of two or more tenants in common or joint tenants before partition.
UNDRES. In old English law. Mi.nors or persons under age not capable of bearing arms. Fieta, l. 1, c. 9; Cowell.
ITNDUE INFLUENCE. In regard to the making of a will and other such matters, undue influence is persuasion carried to the point of overpowering the wlii, or such a controi over the person in question as pro» vents him from acting intelligently, understandingly, and voiuntnriiy, and in effect drr stroys his free agency, and constrains him to do what he nouid not have done if such control had not been exercised. See Mitchell v. Mitcheii, 43 Minn. 73, 44 N. W. 885; Bennett v. Bennett. 50 N. J. Er]. 439, 26 Ati. 573: Francis v. Wilkinson, 147 Iii. 370, 35 N. E. 150; Conley v. Nailer, 118 U. S. 127, 6 Sup. Ct. 1001, 30 L. no. 112; Marx v. Me- Givnn, 88 N. Y 370; In re Logan’s Estate. 195 Pa. 232, 45 Atl. 729; Mooney v. Olsen. 22 Kan. 79; in re Black's Estate, Myr. Prob. (Cai.) 31.
Undue influence consists (1) in the use, by one in whom a confidence is reposed by another, or who hoids a reai or apparent authority orer him, of such confidence or authority, for the purpose of obtaining an un- falr advantage over him: (2) in taking an unfair advantage of another's weakness of mind; or (3) in taking a grossiy oppressive and unfair advantage of another's necessities or distress. Clv. Code Dak. § 886.
Undue influence at elections is vihere any one interferes with the free exercise of a voter‘s franchise by violence. intimidation,
or otherwise. It is a misdemeanor. 1 Russ. Crimes, 321: Steph. Grim. Dig. 79. UNTAIR COMPETITION. A term
which may be appiied generally to all dis- honest or frauduient rivalry in trade and commerce, but is particuiariy appiied in the courts of equity (where it may be restrained by injunction) to the practice of endeavoring to substitute one's own goods or products in the markets for those of another, having an established reputation and extensive sale, by means of imitating or counterfeiting the name. title, size. shape, or distinctive pr.» cuiiarlties of the artlcie, or the shape, color. label, wrapper, or generai appearance of the package, or other such sininiations, the imitation being carried far enough to rnlsiead the general pnhiic or deceive an unwary purchaser, and yet not amounting to an absoiute counterfeit or to the in- fringement of a trademark or trade-name. Called in France and Germany "concurrcnce delegate." See Reddaway v. Banhani.  App. Cas. 199; Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U. S. 169, 16 Sup. Ct. Bl.Law Dict.(2d Ed.)—75
1002, 41 L. Ed. 118; Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Thomas Mfg Co. (0. C.) 94 Fed. 651; Sim- mons Medicine Co. v. Mansfield Drug Co.. 93 Tenn. 84, 23 S. W. 165; Cornelius v. Ferguson, 17 S. D. 481, 97 N. W. 390: Steriiug Remedy Co. v. Eureka Cliemicai Co.. 80 Fed. 108, 25 C. C. A. 314; T. 13. Donn Co. v. ‘Ii-ix Mfg. Co.. 50 App. Div. 75. 63 N. Y. Supp. 333.
UNGELD. In Saxon law. An outiaw; a person whose murder required no compo- sition to be made, or weregcld to be paid, by his slayer.
UNICA TAXATIO.}} The obsolete ian- guage of a special award of cmiire, where, of several defendants, one pleads, and one lets Judgment go ‘by default, whereby the jury, who are to try and assess damages on the issue, are also to assess damages against the defendant sud‘erlng judgment by default. Wharton
UNIFORM. A statute is general and uniform in ita operation when it operates equnily upon all persons who are brought within the relations and circumstances pro- vided tor. l\lcAunlch v. Mississippi & M. R. Co._ 20 Iowa, W: Peopie v. Judge. 17 Cal. 5 . Kelley v. State, 6 Ol1io St. 271; State v. Hoyn, 63 Ohio St. 202. 58 N E. 572, 52 L. R. A. 863. 81 Am. St. Rep. 626: Arms v. Ayer. 192 Iii. 601, 61 N. E. 851, 58 L. R. A. 277. 85 Am. St. Rep. 357.
'UN'.[I‘0R1Vl'I'1‘Y. In taxation. Uniformity in taxation implies equality in the hurden of taxation, which cannot exist without uniformity in the mode of assessment, as well as in the rate of taxation. Further, the uniformity must be coextensive with the territory to which it applies. And it must be extended to all property subject to taxation. so that all property may he taxed alike and equally. Exchange Bank v. Hines, 3 Ohio St. 15. And see Edye v. Rohertson, 112 U. S. 580, 5 Sup. Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798. Adams v. Mississippi State Bank, 75 Miss 701, 28 South 395: Peopie v. Auditor Gereral, 7 Mich. 90.
‘UNIFORMITY, ACT 0!‘, which regu- iates the terms of membership in the Church of England and the coileges of Oxford and Cambridge, (St. 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4.) See St. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 59. The act of uniformity has been amended by the St. 35 & 36 Vict. c. 35, which inter alia provides a shortened form of morning and evening prayer. Wharton.
UNIFORMITY OF PROCESS ACT. The English statute of 2 Wm. IV‘. c. 39, estahiishing a uniform process for the cominenceinent of actions in all the courts of law at Westminster. 3 Steph. Comm. 566.
UNIGENITURE. only begotten.
The state of being the