Legal Term Dictionary

Lat Inauspicious. Applied, in the Roman law, to a day on which it was unlawful to open the courts or administer justice. Negatio conclusionis est error in lege. Wing. 268. The denial of a conclusion is. error in law. Negatio destruit negationem, et am-bss faciunt afflrmationem. A negative destroys a More...

Lat Inauspicious. Applied, in the Roman law, to a day on which it was unlawful to open the courts or administer justice. Negatio conclusionis est error in lege. Wing. 268. The denial of a conclusion is. error in law. Negatio destruit negationem, et am-bss faciunt afflrmationem. A negative destroys a negative, and both make an affirmative. Co. Litt 146b. Lord Coke cites' this as a rule of grammatical construction, not always applying in law. Negatio duplex est afflrmatio. A double negative is an affirmative. Less...

A denial; a proposition by which something is denied; a statement in the form of denial.' Two negatives do not make a good issue. Steph. PI. 386, 387. -Negative averment. As opposed to the traverse or simple denial of an affirmative allegation, a negative averment is an allegation of some More...

A denial; a proposition by which something is denied; a statement in the form of denial.' Two negatives do not make a good issue. Steph. PI. 386, 387. -Negative averment. As opposed to the traverse or simple denial of an affirmative allegation, a negative averment is an allegation of some substantive fact, e. g., that premises are not in repair, which, although negative inform, is really affirmative in substance, and the party alleging the fact of non-repair must prove it. Brown.-Negative condition. One by which it is stipulated that a given thing shall not happen.-Negative pregnant. In pleading. A negative implying also an affirmative. Cowell. Such a form of negative expression as may imply or carry within it an affirmative. Steph. PL 318; Fields v. State, 134 Ind. 46, 32 N. EL 780; Stone v. Quaal, 36 Minn. 46, 29 N. W. 326. As if a man be said to have aliened land in fee, and he says he hat not aliened in fee, this is a negative pregnant; for, though it be true that he has not aliened in fee, yet it may be that he has made an estate in tail. Cowell. As to negative "Covenant," "Easement," "Servitude," "Statute," and "Testimony," see those titles. Less...

Omission; failure to do something that one is bound, to do; carelessness. The term is used in the law of bailment as synonymous with "negligence". But the latter word is the closer translation of the Latin "negligentia." As used in respect to the payment of money, refusal is the failure More...

Omission; failure to do something that one is bound, to do; carelessness. The term is used in the law of bailment as synonymous with "negligence". But the latter word is the closer translation of the Latin "negligentia." As used in respect to the payment of money, refusal is the failure to pay money when demanded; neglect is the failure to pay money which the party is bound to pay without demand. Kimball v. Rowland, 6 Gray (Mass.) 224. The term means to omit, as to neglect business or payment or duty or work, and is generally used in this sense. It does not generally imply carelessness or imprudence, but simply an emission to do or perform some work, duty, or act. Rosenplaenter v. Roessle, 54 N. Y. 262. -Culpable neglect. In this phrase, the word "culpable" means not criminal, but censurable; and, when the term is applied to the omission by a person to preserve the means of enforcing his own rights, censurable is more nearly an equivalent. As he has merely lost a right of action which he might voluntarily relinquish, and has wronged nobody but himself, culpable neglect conveys the idea of neglect which exists where the loss can fairly be ascribed to the party's own carelessness, improvidence, or folly. Bank v. Wright, 8 Allen (Mass.) 121; Bennett v. Bennett, 03 Me. 241, 44 AtL 894.- Willful neglect. Willful neglect is the neglect of the husband to provide for his wife the common necessaries of life, he having the ability to do so; or it is the failure to do so by reason of idleness, profligacy, or dissipation. Civil Code Cal. ? 105. Less...

An escape from confinement effected by the prisoner without the knowledge or connivance of the keeper of the prison, but which was made possible or practicable by the latter's negligence, or by his omission of such care and vigilance as he was legally bound to exercise in the safe-keeping of More...

An escape from confinement effected by the prisoner without the knowledge or connivance of the keeper of the prison, but which was made possible or practicable by the latter's negligence, or by his omission of such care and vigilance as he was legally bound to exercise in the safe-keeping of the prisoner. Less...

Lat In the civil law. Carelessness; inattention; the omission of proper care or forethought The term is not exactly equivalent to our "negligence," inasmuch as it was not any negligentia, but only a high or gross degree of it, that amounted to culpa, (actionable or punishable fault) Negligentia semper nabet More...

Lat In the civil law. Carelessness; inattention; the omission of proper care or forethought The term is not exactly equivalent to our "negligence," inasmuch as it was not any negligentia, but only a high or gross degree of it, that amounted to culpa, (actionable or punishable fault) Negligentia semper nabet infortunium eomitem. Negligence always has misfortune for a companion. Co. Litt. 240b; Shep. Touch. 476. Less...

It Is conceded by all the authorities that the standard by which to determine whether a person has been guilty of negligence is the conduct of the prudent or careful or diligent man. Bigelow, Torts, 261. The failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, that More...

It Is conceded by all the authorities that the standard by which to determine whether a person has been guilty of negligence is the conduct of the prudent or careful or diligent man. Bigelow, Torts, 261. The failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree ot care, precaution, and vigilance, which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. Cooley, Torts, 630. The failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would ordinarily have done under the circumstances of the situation, or the doing what such a person under the existing circumstances would' not have done. Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Jones, 05 U. S. 441, 24 L. Ed. 506. The opposite of care and prudence; the omission to use the means reasonably necessary to avoid injury to others. Great Western R. Co. v. Haworth, 39 111. 353. Negligence or carelessness signifies want of care, caution, attention, diligence, or discretion in one having no positive intention to injure the person complaining thereof. The words ''reckless," "indifferent," 4fcareiess," and "wanton" are never understood to signify positive will or intention, unless when joined with other words which show that they are to receive an artificial or unusual, if not an unnatural, interpretation. Lexington v. Lewis, 10 Bush (Ky.) 677. Negligence is any culpable omission of a positive duty. It differs from heedlessness, in that heedlessness is the doing of an act in violation of a negative duty, without adverting to its possible consequences. In both cases there is inadvertence, and there is breach of duty. Aust. Jur. | 630. -^Actionable negligence. See ACTIONABLE. -Collateral negligence. In the law relating to the responsibility of an employer or principal for the negligent acts or omissions of his employ^, the term "collateral" negligence is sometimes used to describe negligence attributable to a contractor employed by the principal and for which the latter is not responsible, though he would be responsible for the same thing if done by his servant. Weber v. Railway Co., 20 App. Div. 292, 47 N. Y. Supp. 11.-Comparative negligence. See COMPARATIVE.-Contributory negligence. Contributory negligence, when set up as a defense to an action for injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence, means any want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured, (or on the part of another whose negligence is Imputable to him,) which combined and concurred with the defendant's negligence, and contributed to the injury as a proximate cause thereof, and as an element without which the injury would not have occurred. Railroad Co. v. Young, 153 Ind. 163, 54 N. E. 791; Dell v. Glass Co., 169 Pa. 549. 32 Atl. 601; Barton v. Railroad Co., 52 Mo. 253, 14 Am. Rep. 418; Plant Inv. Co. v. Cook, 74 Fed. 503, 20 C. C. A. 625; MlcLaughlin v. Electric Light Co.. 100 Ky. 173, 37 S. W. 851, 34 L. R. A. 812; Riley v. Railway Co., 27 W. Va. 164.-Criminal negligence. Negligence of Buch a character, or occurring under such circumstances, as to be punishable as a crime by statute; or (at common law) such a flagrant and reckless disregard of the safety of others, or wilful indifference to the iniury liable to follow, as to convert an act otherwise lawful into a crime when it results in personal injury or death. 4 Bl. Comm. 192, note; Cook v. Railroad Co. 72 Ga. 48: Rankin v. Transportation Co., 73 Ga. 229. 54 Am. Rep. 874; Railroad Co. v. Cbollette,.33 Neb. 143. 49 N. W. 1114.-Oultable negligence. Failure to exercise that egree of care rendered appropriate by the particular circumstances, and which a man of ordinary prudence in the same situation and with equal experience would not have omitted. Carter v. Lumber Co., 120 N. C. 203. 39 S. E. 828; Railroad Co. v. Newman, 36 Ark. 611; Woodman v. Nottingham, 49 N. IL 387, 6 Am. Rep. 526; Kimball v. Palmer, 80 Fed. 240. 25 C. C. A* 394; Railway Co. v. Brown, 44 Kan. 384, 24 Pac. 497; Railroad Co. v. Plaskett, 47 Kan. 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 take of their own property. Litchfield v. White, 7 N. Y. 442, 57 Am. Dec. 534; Lycoming Ins. Co. v. Bar ringer, 73 111. 235; Seybel v. National Currency Bank 54 N. Y. 299, 13 Am. Rep. 583; Bannon v. Baltimore A O. R. Co.. 24 Md. 124; Briggs.v. Spaulding, 141 U. S. 132, 11 Sup. Ct. 925, 35 L. Ed 662; Preston v. Prather, 137 TJ. S. 604, 11 Sup. Ct 162, 34 L. Ed. 788. In the law of torts (and especially with reference to personal injury cases), the term means such negligence as evidences a reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them. McDonald v. Railroad Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 21 S. W. 775; Railroad Co. v. Robinson. 4 Bush (Ky.) 509; Railroad Co. v. Bodemer, 139 111. 596, 29 N. E. 692, 32 Am. St Rep. 218; Denman v. Johnston, 85 Mich. 387, 48 N. W. 565; Railroad Co. v. Orr, 121 Ala. 489, 26 South. 35; Coit v. Western Union Tel. Co., 130 Cal. 657, 63 Pac. 83, 53 L. R. A. 678, 80 Am. St Rep. 153.-Hazardous negligence. Such careless or reckless conduct as exposes one to very great danger of injury or to imminent peril. See Riggs v. Standard Oil Co. (C. C.) 130 Fed. 204.- Les;al negligence. Negligence per se; the omission of suchcare as ordinarily prudent persons exercise and deem adequate to the circumstances of the case. In cases where the common experience of mankind and the common judgment of prudent persons have recognized that to do or omit certain acts is prolific of danger, the doing or omission of them is "legal negligence." Carrico v. Railway Co., 35 W. Va. 389. 14 S. E. 12; Drake v. Wild, 70 Vt. 52. 39 Atl. 248; Johnson v. Railway Co., 49 Wis. 529, 5 N. W. 886.-Negligence per se. Conduct, whether of action or omission, which may be declared and treated as negligence without any argument or proof as to the particular surrounding circumstances, either because it is in violation of a statute or valid municipal ordinance, or because it is so palpably opposed to the dictates of common prudence that it can be said without hesitation or doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of it. See Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Lee, 70 Tex. 496. 7 S. W. 857; Central R. & B. Co. v. Smith, 78 Ga. 694, 3 S. E. 397; Murray v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 101 Mo. 236. 13 S. W. 817, 20 Am. St. Rep. 601; Moser v. Union Traction Co., 205 Pa. 481, 55 Atl. 15.-Ordinary negligence. The omission of that, care which a man of common prudence usually takes of his own concerns. Ouderkirk v. Central Nat. Bank, 119 N. Y. 263. 23 N. E. 875; Scott v. Depeyster. 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 543 : Tyler v. Nelson, 109 Mich. 37, 66 N. W. 671; Ton-cray v. Dodge County, 33 Neb. 802, 51 N. W. 235; Brigs* v. Spauldin*. 141 U. S. 132, 11 Sup. Ct. 824. 35 L. Ed. 662; Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Murphy, 50 Ohio St. 135, 33 N. E. 403.-Slight negligence. Slight negligence is not slight want of ordinary care contributing to the injury, which would defeat an action for negligence. Slight negligence is defined to be only an absence of that degree of care and vigilance which persons of extraordinary prudence and foresight are accustomed to use. Briggs v. Spaulding, 141 U. S. 132, 11 Sup. Ct. 924, 35 L. Ed. 662; French v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., *43 N. Y. 108; Litchfield v. White, 7 N, Y. 438. 57 Am. Dec 534; Griffin v. Willow. 43 Wis. 512.-Wanton negligence. Reckless indifference to the consequences of an act or omission, where the party acting or failing to act is conscious of his conduct and, without any actual intent to injure, is aware, from his knowledge of existing circumstances and conditions, that his conduct will inevitably oi probably result in injury to another. Louisville A N. R. Co. v. Webb, 97 Ala. 308, 12 South. 374: Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hall, 105 Ala. 599. 17 South. 176.-Willful negUk genoe. Though rejected by some courts and writers as involving a contradiction of terms, this phrase is occasionally used to describe A higher or more aggravated form of negligence than "gross." It then means a willful deter* mination not to perform a known duty, or s> reckless disregard of the safety or the rights of others, as manifested by the conscious' and intentional omission of the care proper under the circumstances. See Victor Coal Co. Vi Muir, 20 Colo. 320. 38 Pac. 378, 26 L. R. A. 485, 46 Am. St. Rep. 299; Holwerson v. Railway Co., 157 Mo. 216, 57 S. W. 770, 50 L. R. A. 850] Lockwood v. Railway Co., 92 Wis. 97, 65 N. W. 866; Kentucky Cent. R. Co, v. Carr (Ky.) 43 S. W. 193, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 1172; Florida Southern Ry. v. Hirst, 30 Fla; 1, 11 South. 506, 16 L. R. A. 631. 32 Am. St: Rep. 17; Lexington v. Lewis, 10 Bush (Ky.) 680; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Leiner. 202 III. 624, 67 N. E. 398. 95 Am. St. Rep. 266. Less...

Fr. Business; trade; management of affairs.

Fr. Business; trade; management of affairs. Less...

In mercantile law. Transferable quality. That quality of bills of exchange and promissory notes which renders them transferable from one person to another, and from possessing which they are emphatically termed "negotiable paper." 3 Kent, Comm. 74, 77, 89, et seq. See Story, Bills, | 60.

In mercantile law. Transferable quality. That quality of bills of exchange and promissory notes which renders them transferable from one person to another, and from possessing which they are emphatically termed "negotiable paper." 3 Kent, Comm. 74, 77, 89, et seq. See Story, Bills, | 60. Less...

An instrument embodying an obligation for the payment of money is called "negotiable" when the legal title to the instrument itself and to the whole amount of money expressed upon its face, with the right to sue therefor in his own name, may be transferred from one person to another More...

An instrument embodying an obligation for the payment of money is called "negotiable" when the legal title to the instrument itself and to the whole amount of money expressed upon its face, with the right to sue therefor in his own name, may be transferred from one person to another without a formal assignment, but by mere indorsement and delivery by the holder or by delivery only. See 1 Daniel, Nego. Inst, f 1; Walker v. Ocean Bank, 19 Ind. 247; Robinson v. Wilkinson, 38 Mich. 299; Odell v. Gray, 15 Mo. 337, 55 Am. Dec. 147. -Negotiable instruments. A general name for bills, notes, checks, transferable bonds or coupons, letters of credit, and other negotiable written securities. Any written securities which may be transferred by indorsement and delivery or by delivery merely, so as to vest in the indorsee the legal title, and thus enable him to sue thereon in his own name. Or, more technically, those instruments which not only carry the legal title with them by indorsement or delivery, but carry as well, when transferred before maturity, the right of the transferee to demand the full amounts which their faces call for. Daniel, Neg. Inst. ? la. A negotiable instrument is a written promise or request for the payment of a certain sum of money to order or bearer. Civ. Code Cal. f 3087. -Negotiable words. Words and phrases which impart the character of negotiability to bills, notes, checks, etc., in which they are inserted; for instance, a direction to pay to A*, "or order" or "bearer." Less...

To discuss or arrange a sale or bargain; to arrange the preliminaries of a business transaction. Also to sell or discount negotiable paper, or assign or transfer it by indorsement and delivery. Palmer v. Perry, 6 Gray (Mass.) 420; Newport Nat. Bank v. Board of Education, 114 Ky. 87, 70 More...

To discuss or arrange a sale or bargain; to arrange the preliminaries of a business transaction. Also to sell or discount negotiable paper, or assign or transfer it by indorsement and delivery. Palmer v. Perry, 6 Gray (Mass.) 420; Newport Nat. Bank v. Board of Education, 114 Ky. 87, 70 S. W. 186; Odell v. Clyde, 23 Misc. Rep. 734, 53 N. Y. Supp. 61; Blakiston v. Dudley, 5 Duer (N. Y.) 377. Less...