confusion

on the note given by Ficklin to his own firm of McMicken and Ficklin, with Webb and Smith as sureties, Ficklin, as a partner, was entitled to one half, upon the dissolution of the firm, and that thereupon, pro tanto, the obligation of these sureties would cease, as Ficklin could have no right of action against himself to compel payment to himself.

In Common Law. The intermixture of the goods of two persons, so that the several portions can be no longer distinguished. 2 Bl, Comm. 405. The term, and, in a great degree, the doctrine, are borrowed from the confusio of the civil law. The meaning of the former, however, has been so far modified as to include not only the intermixture or interfusion of liquids and metals (the confusio proper of the civil law), but also that of dry articles (properly expressed in the same law by the term commixtio). The doctrines, also, of the two systems so far that of another, without his approbation or consent, a satisfaction for what he has so improvidently lost, the common law allows him nothing, but gives the entire property to the other party. 2 Bl. Comm. 405; Inst. 2. 1. 28; 2 Steph. Comm. 85; 2 Kent, Comm. 364; U. S. Dig. It is the admixture of goods of the same kind, as distinguished from "accession," which is the union of materials of different kinds. In Civil Law. The blending or union of the characters of debtor and creditor in the same person; the union of the obligation of the debtor with the right of the creditor, which dissolves or extinguishes the former. Heinec. Elem. Jur. Civ. bk. 3, tit. 30, § 1006; Ersk. Inst. lib. e, tit. 4, § 23. Thus, where a woman obligee marries the obligor, the debt is extinguished. 1 Salk. 306.

This term, as used in the civil law and in compound terms derived from that source, means a blending or intermingling, and is equivalent to the term "merger" as used at common law. Palmer v. Burnside, 1 Woods, 182, Fed. Cas. No. 10,685.

— Confusion of boundaries. The title of that branch of equity jurisdiction which relates to the discovery and settlement of conflicting, disputed, or uncertain boundaries.

— Confusion of debts. A mode of extinguishing a debt, by the concurrence in the same person of two qualities which mutually destroy one another. This may occur in several ways, as where the creditor becomes the heir of the debtor, or the debtor the heir of the creditor, or either accedes to the title of the other by any other mode of transfer. Woods v. Ridley, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 198.

— Confusion of goods. The inseparable intermixture of property belonging to different owners; properly confined to the pouring together of fluids, but used in a wider sense to designate any indistinguishable compound of elements belonging to different owners. The term "confusion" is applicable to a mixing of chattels of one and the same general description, differing thus from "accession," which is where various materials are united in one product. Confusion of goods arises wherever the goods of two or more persons are so blended as to have become undistinguishable. 1 Sehouter, Pers. Prop. 41. Treat v. Barbee, 7 Conn. 280; Robinson v. Holt, 39 N. H. 563, 75 Am. Dec. 233; Belcher v. Commission Co.., 26 Tex./Civ. App. 60, 62 S. W. 024.

— Confusion of rights. A union of the qualities of debtor and creditor in the same person. The effect of such a union is, generally, to extinguish the debt. 1 Salk. 306; Cro. Car. 551.

— Confusion of titles. A civil-law expression, synonymous with "merger," as used in the common law, applying where two titles to the same property unite m the same person. Palmer v. Burnside, 1 Woods, 179, Fed. Cas. No. 10,685.

In Roman and French law. A mode of extinguishing a debt, by the concurrence in the sume person of two qualities which mutually destroy one another. This may occur in several ways, as where the creditor becomes the heir of the debtor, ar the debtor the heir of the erediter, or either accedes to the title of the other by any other anode of transfer. This tern, as used in the civil law, is synonymous with “merger,” ag used in the common law. It arises where two titles to the same property unite in the same person. 1 Woods, 182.

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.*

In the common law. The intermixture of the goods of two persons, so that the several portions can be no longer distinguished. 2 BL Com. 405. The term and, in a great degree, the doctrine are borrowed from the confusio of the civil law. The meaning of the former, however, has been so far modified as to include not only the intermixture or interfusion of liquids and metals, (the confusio proper of the civil law,) but also that of dry articles, (properly expressed in the same law by the term commixtio,) The doctrines also of the two systems so far differ, that while the civil law allows a party who wilfully intermixes his property with that of another, without his approbation or consent, a satisfaction for what he has so improvidently lost, the common law allows him nothing, but gives the entire property to the other par^. 2 BL Com, 405. Inst, 2. 1. 28. 2 Stipk. C&m. 85. 2 Km Cs Com, 364. U, S. Dig, and Supplement, Confusion. See Confusio, Commixtio,