Duty

A human action which is exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them. That which is right or due from one to another. A moral obligation or responsibility. It differs from a legal obligation, because a duty cannot always be enforced by the law: it is our duty, for example, to be temperate in eating, but we are under no legal obligation to be so; we ought to love our neighbors, but no law obliges us to love them. DWELLING;- HOUSE. A building inhabited by man. A house usually occupied by ings in which a man with his family resides.

2 Bish. Cr. Law § 104.

The importance of an exact signification for this word is often felt in criminal cases; and yet It is very difficult to frame an exact definition which will apply to all cases. It is said to be equivalent to mansion-house; Com. v. Pennock, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 199; State v. Sutcliffe, 4 Strobh. (S. C.) 372; 7 Mann. & G. 122.

See 14 M. & W. 181; 4 C. B. 105; Com. v. Posey, 4 Call (Va.) 109, 2 Am. Dec. 560.

Judge Cooley, in Stearns v. Vincent, 50 Mich. 219, 15 N. W. 86, 45 Am. Rep. 37, says that in the law of burglary the dwellinghouse is deemed to include whatever is within the curtilage, even though not inclosed with the dwelling, if used with it for domestic purposes; People v. Taylor, 2 Mich. 250; Pitcher v. People, 16 Mich. 142. It must be a permanent structure; 1 Hale, PI. Cr. 557; 1 Russ. Cr. 798; must be inhabited at the time; 2 Leach 1018, n.; State v. Warren, 33 Me. 30; Ex parte Vincent, 26 Ala. 145, 62 Am. Dec. 714; Com. v. Barney, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 479; People v. Cotteral, 18 Johns. (N. T.) 115; Com. v. Posey, 4 Call (Va.) 109, 2 Am. Dec. 560; Scott v. State, 62 Miss. 782. It is sufficient if a part of the structure only be used for an abode; Russ. & R. 185; Stedman v. Crane, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 295; Cole v. State, 9 Tex. 42; 2 B. & P. 508; Dale v. State, 27 Ala. 31. How far a building may be separate is a difficult question; Com. v. Estabrook, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 293; State v. Langford, 12 N. C. 253; Armour v. State, 3 Humphr. (Tenn.) 379; State v. Ginns, 1 N. & McC. (S. C.) 583; Com. v. Sanders, 5 Leigh (Va.) 751; People v. Dupree, 98 Mich. 26, 56 N. W. 1046; Bruce v. Cloutman, 45 N. H. 37, 84 Am. Dec. Ill; Chase v. Ins. Co., 20 N. Y. 52; 18 Q. B. 783; 22 Ir. L. T. Rep. 30; State v. Clark, 89 Mo. 430, 1 S. W. 332; Davis v. State, 38 Ohio St. 506; State v. Mordecai, 68 N. C. 207. A suite of rooms in a college of the University of Cambridge is a dwelling-house; L. R. 4 C. P. 539. Six separate tenants occupied a house of ten rooms, each having exclusive possession of his part of the premises and the owner did not reside there. The outer and street door had no lock or bolt and was always kept open. The entry, stairway, and an ashpit and other conveniences were used in common. Two of the judges held that each of the six tenants occupied a "dwelling-house," and two held otherwise; L. R. 6 C. P. 327.