Page:Black's Law Dictionary (Second Edition).djvu/12

Rh as in the feudal law, and from which the English "alienation" has been formed. Inst. 2, 8. pr.; Id. 2, 1, 40; Dig. 50, 16, 28.

Lat. In the civil law. A great—great-grandfather’s sister, (abavi soror.) Inst. 3, 6, 6; Dig. 38, 10, 3. Called amita maxima. Id 38, 10, 10, 17. Called, in Bracton, abamita magna. Bract; fol. 68b.

To desert, surrender, relinquish, give up, or cede. See

A party to whom a right or property is abandoned or relinquished by another. Applied to the insurers of vessels and cargoes. Lord Ellenborough, C. J., 5 Maule &. S. 82; Abbott. J. Id. 87; Holroyd, J., Id. 89.

The surrender, relinquishment. disclaimer, or cession of property or of rights. Stephens v. Mansfield, 11 Cal. 368; Dikes v. Miller, 24; Tex. 417; Middle Creek Ditch Co. v. Henry, 15 Mont 558, 39 Pac. 1034.

The giving up a thing absolutely, without reference to any particular person or purpose, as throwing a jewel into the highway: leaving a thing to itself, as a vessel at sea: Vacating property with the intention of not returning, so that it may be appropriated by the next comer. 2 Bl. Comm. 9, 10; Pidge v. Pidge. 3 Metc. (Mass) 265; Breedlove v. Stump, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 257, 276: Richardson v. McNulty, 24 Cal. 339, 345; Judson v. Malloy, 40 Cal. 299, 310.

To constitute abandonment there must concur an intention to forsake or relinquish the thing in question and some external act by which that intention is manifested or carried into effect. Mere nonuser is not abandonment unless coupled with an intention not to resume or reclaim the use or possession. Sikes v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) S. W. 688: Barnett v. Dickinson, 93. Md. 238; 48 Atl. 838; Welsh v. Taylor, 134 N. Y. 450, 31 N. E. 896, 18 L. R. A. 535.

A relinquishment or cession of property by the owner to the insurer of it, in order to claim as for a total loss, when in fact it is so by construction only. 2 Steph. Comm. 178. The exercise of a right which a party having insured goods or Vessels has to call upon the insurers, in cases where the property insured has, by perils of the sea, become so much damaged as to be of little value, to accept of what is or may be saved, and to pay the full amount of the insurance, as if a total loss had actually happened. Park, Ins. 143; 2 Marsh. Ins. 559; 3 Kent, Comm. 318-335, and notes; The St Johns (D. C.) 101 Fed. 469; Roux v. Salvador, 3 Bing. N. C. 266, 284; Meiiish v. Andrews, 15 East, 13; Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Duffield. 6 Ohio St. 200, 67 Am. Dec. 339.

Abandonment is the act by which, after a constructive total loss, a person insured by contract of marine insurance declares to the insurer that he relinquishes to him his interest in the thing insured. Civil Code Cal. § 2716.

The term is used only in reference to risks in navigation; but the principle is applicable in tire insurance, where there are remnants, and sometimes, also, under stipulations in life policies in favor of creditors.

The surrender of a vessel and freight by the owner of the some to a person having a claim thereon arising out of a contract made with the master. See Poth. Chart. § 2. art. 8, 551.

As applied to inventions, abandonment is the giving up of his rights by the inventor, as where he surrenders his idea or discovery or relinquishes the intention of perfecting his invention, and so throws it open to the public, or where he negligently postpones the assertion of his claims or fails to apply for a patent, and allows the public to use his invention without objection. Woodbury, etc., Machine Co. V. Keith, 101 U. S. 479, -185, 25 L. Ed. 939; American Hide, etc., Ca. v. American Tool, etc., Co., 1 Fed. Cas. 647; Mast v. Dumpster Mill Co. (0. C.) 71 Fed. 701', Bnrtiette V. Crittenden. 2 Fed. Cns. 931; Pitts v. Hall, 19 Fed. Cas. 754. There may also be an abandonment of a patent, where the inventor dedicates it to the public use; and this may be shown by his failure to sue infringers, to sell licenses, or otherwise to make efforts to realize a personal advantage from his patent. Ransom v. New York, 4 Bintchf. 157, 20 Fed. Gas. 286.

Permanent cessation of use or enjoyment with no intention to resume or reclaim. Welsh v. Taylor, 134 N. Y. 450, 31 N. E. 896, 18 L. R. A. Corning V. Gould, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) Tucker v. Jones, 8 Mont. 223, 19 Pac. McClain V. Chicago, etc., It. Co., 90 Iowa. 616, 57 N. W. 594; Oviatt v. Big Four Min. Co., 39 Or. 118, 65 Pac. 811.

The relinquishment of a claim held by location without patent, where the holder Voluntarily leaves his claim to be appropriated by the next comer, without any intention to retake or resume it, and regardless of what may license of it in the future. McKay v. McDougal1. 25 Mont. 258, 6-1 Puc. 669, 87 Am. St. Rep. 39.1; St. John v. Kidd, 26 Cal. 2133, 272; Oreamuno v. Uncle Sam Min. 00.. 1 Nov. 215; Derry v. Ross, 5 Colo. 295.

Permanent removal from the place of one‘s domicile with the intention of taking up a residence elsewhere and with no intention to returning to the original home except temporarily. Stanford V. Mills, 57 N. J. Law, 570. 31 Atl. 1023: Mills V. Alexander, 21 Tex. 154; Jarvais v. Moe, 38 Wis. 440.

By husband or wife. The act of a husband or wife who leaves his or her