Confusion

Mixing, intermixture; intermingling, blending; confounding. Confusion of boundaries. Where the boundary lines of different titles are conflicting, disputed, or uncertain; also, that branch of equity jurisprudence which ascertains such boundaries, q. v. Confusion of debts. The concurrence of two adverse rights to the same thing in one and the same person.^ Confusion of goods. Intermixture of the goods of different owners so that the separate properties are indistinguishable. Applies to the mixing of chattels of one and the same general description. "Accession" (q. v.) is where various materials are united in one product.^ He who causes a confusion of goods must hear whatever loss or disadvantage results. The general rule that governs cases of intermixture of property has many exceptions. It applies in no case where the goods intermingled remain capable of identification, nor where they are of the same quality or value; as where guineas are mingled, or grain of the same quality. Nor does the rule apply where the intermixture is accidental, or even Intentional, if not wrongful. All authorities agree, however, that if a > 1 Story, Eq. §§ 544-45. = WestfaU II. Madison Co., 62 Iowa, 427 (1883). ' Howser v. Commonwealth, 51 Pa. 388 (1865). 'Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 158-60 (1878), cases; United States v. Angell, 11 F. E. 43 (1881); 34 La. An. 121. ' People V. Lowrey, 70 Cal. 193 (1886). « Woods V. Eidley, 11 Humph. 198 (1840); Story, Prom. man willfully and wrongfully mixes his own goods with those of another owner, so as to render them indistinguishable, he will not be entitled to his proportion, or any part, of the property; certainly not, unless the goods of both o^vne^s are of the same quality and value. Such intermixture is a fraud. And so, if a wrong-doer confounds his own goods with goods which he suspects may belong to another, and does this with intent to mislead or deceive that other, and embarrass him in obtaining his right, the effect must be the same... Even where the articles are of the same kind and value, the wronged party has a right to the possession of the entire aggregate, leaving the wrong-doer to reclaim his own, if he can identify it, or to demand his proportional part. So held where bales of cotton, of different weight and grade, were purposely intermixed to render identification of particular bales impracticable.' Confusion of rights or titles. In civil law, when titles to the same property unite in the same person. " Confusion " in the civil law is synonymous with "merger" in the common law.*