Page:Black's Law Dictionary (Second Edition).djvu/19

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

{{anchor+|.|ABSTRACT, n. An abstract is a less quantity containing the virtue and force of a greater quantity. A transcript is generally defined a copy, and is more comprehensive than an abstract. Harrison v. Mfg. Co., 10 S. C. 278, 283; Hess v. Draffen, 9!) Mo. App. 580. 74 S. W. 440: Dickinson v. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co., 7 W. Va. 390. 413; Wilhite v. Burr. 67 M0. 284.

{{anchor+|.|ABSTRACT, v. To take or withdraw from.

Under the National Bank Act, “abstraction” is the act of one viho, being an officer of a national banking association, wrongfully lakes or vutlidi-aws from it any of its mnneys, funds, or credits, with intent to injure or defraud ‘it or some other person or company, and, without its knowledge or consent or that of its board of directors, converts them to the use of him- self or of some person or company other than. the bank. It is not the same as cmhezziernent. larcrny, or mlsapplication of funds. United States v. Harper (0. C.) 33 Fed. '1: United States v. Nurthwny, 120 U. S. 327. 7 Sup. Ct. fial). 30 L. Ed. I‘ ' "ind Slates v. Youtsey. If‘. C.) 91 Fcd. 864: United Statcs v. 'I"iintor_ 29 i*‘Nl. (‘:is. 7; United States v. Breese (D. C.) 131 Fed. 915.

{{anchor+|.|ABSTRACT OF A FINE. In old con- reyiincing. One of the parts of a fine, being an abstract of the writ of covenant, and the cniicord, naming the parties, the parcels of Lind, and the agreement. 2 BL Comm. 351; Slicp. Touch. 3. More conininnly caiied the “noLc" of the line. See FIVE: Couconn.

ABSTRACT OF TITLE. A condensed history of the titie to land. consisting of a synopsis or summary of the uiatcriui or op- erative portion of all the conveyances, of whatever kind or nature, which in any manner affect said land, or any estate or interest therein. together with a snitement of all iiens, charges, or liabiiitles to which the same in.-iy be subject, and of which it is in any way m:itei'iai for purchasers to be apprised. “fiI‘V Abst. § 2. Stevenson v. l'ulk. 71 io\\a, 27$. 32 N. W. 340: Union Safe Deposit Co. v. Cliishoim, 33 Iii. App. 647; Banker V. Ciiidiicll. 3 Minn. E)-1 (Gii. 46)‘ Hcinscu V. Lamb, 117 Ill. 549. 7 N. E. 75; Smith V. 'l‘ai'io1'. S2 Cai. 533, 23 Pac. 217.

Au :1 stract is a condensation, epitome, or synopsis, and therein diIIers from a copv or n tianscript. Di iiflS0lJ v. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co., 7 W. Va. 300, 413.

Abnndans cnntela non nocet. Extreme caution does no harm. 11 Coke, 61). This nrlncipie is gcncrally applied to the construction of instruments in which superfluous words have been inserted more clearly to express the intention.

ABSURDITY. In statutory construction, an "absurdity" is not only that which is physically impossible, but also that which is nioraily so; and that is to be regarded as inoi-ally impossible which is contrary to reason, so that it could not he imputed to a l.\J{Ll.‘i in his right senses. State v. Hayes, S1

M0. 574, 585. Auytiiing which is so irrationnl, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention or men of ordinary iiiteiiigeiice and discretion. Bizick, Interp. Laws, 104.

{{anchor+|.|ABUSE. 12. To make excessive or improper use of a thing, or to employ it in a manner contrary to the natural or legal rules for its use; to make an extravagant or ex- cessive use, as to abuse's authoiity.

In the civil law, the borrower of a chattel which, in its nature, cannot be used without consuming it, such as wine or grain. is said to abuse the thing borrowed if he uses it.

{{anchor+|.|ABUSE. vi. Everything which is contrary to good order established by usage. Mari. Repert. Departure from use; iinmodeiate or improper use.

Of cor-pox-ate franchises. The abuse or misuse of its franchises by a l'.‘Ol'[i01‘flU0'l1 signifies any positive act in vioiation of the charter and in derogation of public right. Willflllly done or caused to be done; the use of rights or franchises as a pretext for wrongs and injuries to the public. Baitimore V. Pittsburgh. etc. R. Co., 3 Pittsb. R (Pa.) 20. Fed. Cas. No. 827: Erie & N. E. 1:. Ca. V. Casey. 26 Pa. 287, 318: Railroad Cuuiinission v. Houston. etc., R. Co.. 00 Tex. 1140. 38 S. W. 750: People v. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., B5 N. Y. 513. 20 N. E. (322.

Of judicial discretion. This term. com- monl_\ employed to justify an interference hy a higher court with the exercise of discretionary power by a lower court. imiiiies not merely error of judgment, but perversity of “ill, passion, prejudice, partiality, or mor- ai delinquency. The exercise of an honest judgment, however erroneous it may appear to be. is not an abuse of discretion. Pcopie v. New York Cent. R. 29 N. X’. 418. 431; Stroup v. Raymond, 133 Pa. 27!), % Atl. 626, 03 Am. St. Rep. 758 : Day r. Donohue, 62 N. J. Law. 380, -11 Atl. 934; Citizens’ St. R. Co. V. Heath, 29 Ind. App. 305. (32 ‘V. E. 107. Vvhere a court does not exerc re a discretion in the sense of bcing discreet, clrciimspeit, prudent, and exei sing cautious judgment, it is an abuse of discretion Murray v. Email, 74 Wis. 14, 41 N. W. 1010, Sharon v. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1, 16 Pac. 345.

Of a female child. An injury to the gen- ltal organs in an attempt at carnal knowl- edge. failing short of» actual penetration. Dim kins v. State, 58 Ala. 376, 2!) Am. Rep. 754. But, according to other authorities, “abusc" is here cquivaient to ravishment or rape. Paliii v. State, 38 Neh. 862 57 N. W. 743; C0l1]l!J0'DWe;1ith v. Roosiiell. 143 Mass. 32. 8 N. E. 747; Chambers v. State, 46 Neb. 447, 64 N. W. 1078.

or distress. The using an animal or chattel distrained, which makes the distrainer liable as for a conversion.

Of process. There is said to be an abuse of process when an adversary, through the