Abandon, Historical

Abandon and Abandonment, Historical

Definition

  • To desert, to forsake. Abandonment is the relinquishment or surrender of rights or property by one person to another. In Hickman v. Link, 116 Mo. 123, and Dodge v. Marden, 7 Oregon 460; State V. Seneca County Bank, 5 Ohio St. 177, “Abandonment is a word that has acquired a technical meaning. It is defined to be the relinquishment of a right-the giving up of something to which we are entitled.”Mallett V. Uncle Sam Gold Min. Co., i Nev. 204.
  • Property is said to be abandoned when it is thrown away, or its possession is voluntarily forsaken by the owner. Eads v. Brazelton, 22 Ajk. 509.
  • It includes both the intention to abandon and the external act by which the intention is carried into effect. Hickman v. Link, 115 Mo. 123, Dodge v. Marden, 78 Oregon 460; Livermore v. White, 74 Me. 452; Clark v. Hammerle, 36 Mo. 62a; Moon v. Rollins, 36 Cal. 333; Keane v. Connovan, 21 Cal. 293; Wilson V. Daniels, 79 Iowa 132; Duffey v. Willis, 99 Mo. 132; Rowe v. Minneapolis, 49 Minn. 148; Kuschke v. St. Paul, 45 Minn. 225.
  • This definition is covered also in “The mining reports. A series containing the cases on the law of mines found in the American and English reports, arranged alphabetically by subjects, with notes and references (1883)” .

As where an article is thrown away

  • M’Goon V. Ankeny, 11 111. 558. It may be inferred from mere lapse of time. Brentlinger V. Hutchinson, i Watts (Pa.) 46. See Smoot V. Wathen, 8 Mo. 522.
  • Where the owner of a tannery sold it, but forgot to remove some hides which had been placed in the vats for tanning, and some years afterwards they were found, it was held that they were not abandoned. Livermore v. White, 74 Me. 452, 43 Am. Rep. 600.
  • To constitute abandonment there must be the concurrence of the intention to abandon and the actual relinquishment of the property so that it may be appropriated by the next comer. Judson v. Malloy, 40 Cal. 299.
  • “To constitute an abandonment of a right secured, there must be a clear, unequivocal, and decisive act of the party-an act done which shows a determination in the individual not to have a benefit which is designed for him.”Breedlove v. Stump, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 257, quoted with approval in Dawson V. Daniel, 2 Flipp. (U. S.) 309.

Abandonment of aTrademark

To constitute abandonment of a trademark, an intention to abandon must be shown; mere evidence of nonuser is insufficient. Monson V. Boehm, 26 Ch. Div. 398.

Intent-Questions of law and Fact.

As intent is the essence of abandonment, the facts of each particular case are for the jury. 2 Washb. Real Prop. (4th ed.) 370, 40 Am. Dec. 464, note; Dyer». Sanford, 9Met. (Mass.)395; Clemmins v. Gottshall, 4 Yeates (Pa.) 330; Miller w. Cresson, 5 W. & S. (Pa.) 284; Heath
V. Biddle, 9 Pa. St. 273; Wiggins v. McCleary, 49 N. Y. 346; Bell V. Smith, 2 Johns. (N. Y.)
98; Wilson V. Pearson, 20 111. 81; M’Goon v. Ankeny, 11 111. 558; Hazelbaker v. Goodfellow,
64 111. 238; Taylor v. Hampton, 4 McCord (S. Car.) 96; Parkins v. Dunham, 3 Strobh. (S. Car.) 224; Banks v. Banks, 77 N. Car. 186; Weill v. Lucerne Min. Co., 11 Nev. 200; Myers v. Spooner, 55 Cal. 257; Marquart v. Bradford, 43 Cal. 526; Smith v. Gushing, 41 Cal. 97; Bell v. Bed Rock Tunnel,
etc., Co., 36 Cal. 214; Moon i/. Rollins, 36 Cal. 333; Davis v. Perley, 30 Cal. 630; Roberts
V. Unger, 30 Cal.676; Masson p. Anderson, 3 Baxt. (Tenn.) 290; Landes v. Perkins, 12 Mo.
238. See also Sample v. Robb, 16 Pa. St. 305; Atchison v. McCuUoch, 5 Watts (Pa.)
13. See also Questions of Law and Fact.

See Also

Conclusion

Notes

References and Further Reading

About the Author/s and Reviewer/s

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

Abandon, Historical 2, Abandon, Historical 3, Abandonment and Total Loss in Marine Insurance, Historical, Maritime Insurance, Historical, Right or Abandonment in Marine Insurance, Historical.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *