Connivance

An agreement or consent, indirectly given, that something unlawful shall be done by another. A married party's corrupt consenting to evil conduct, of which afterwards he complains. 2 Bish. Mar. & Div. § 203. Connivance differs from condonation, though the same legal consequences may attend it. Connivance necessarily involves criminality on the part of the individual who connives; condonation may take place without imputing the slightest blame to the party who forgives the injury. Connivance must be the act of the ioimd before the offense has been committed; condonation is the result of a determination to forgive an injury which was not knovni until after it was inflicted. 3 Hagg. Ecc. 350. An error of judgment not involving a willingness to have the delinquency committed is not connivance. 10 Jur. 829. Nor is a watching of the guilty parties, without interference. 109 Mass. 408.

An agreement or consent, indirectly given, that something unlawful shall be done by another. Connivance differs from condonation, though the same legal consequences may attend It. Connivance necessarily involves criminality on the part of the individual who connives; condonation may take place without imputing the slightest blame to the party who forgives the injury. Connivance must be the act of the mind before the offence has been committed; condonation is the result of a determination to forgive an injury which was not known until after it was inflicted. 3 Hagg. Bccl. 350. Connivance differs, also, from collusion: the former is generally collusion for a particular purpose, while the latter may exist without connivance. 3 Hagg. Eccl. 130. The connivance of the husband to his wife's prostitution deprives him of the right of obtaining a divorce, or of recovering damages from the seducer; Geary, Mar. & Fam. R. 26S; 4 Term 657. The husband may actively connive at the adultery; Myers v. Myers, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 114; Hedden v. Hedden, 21 N. J. Eq. 61; or he may passively; 5 Eng. Ecc. 27; 3 Hagg. Eccl. 87. It may be satisfactorily proved by implication. See Shelf. Mar. & Div. 449; 2 Bish. Mar. & Div. § 6; 2 Hagg. Eccl. 278, 376; 3 id. 58, 82, 107, 119, 312; Pierce v. Pierce, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 299, 15 Am. Dec. 210; Seagar v. Sligerland, 2 Gaines (N. Y.) 219; Masten v. Masten, 15 N. H. 161; Herrick v. Herriek, 31 Mich. 300; In re Childs, 109 Mass. 407; Cochran v. Cochran, 35 la. 477. A husband who connives at or consents to adultery by his wife is deemed as consenting to it with others and cannot have a divorce for a subsequent act with a different person, though the act connived at was not committed; Hedden v. Hedden, 21 N. J. Eq. 61; nor can he where the wife was led into it by connivance of a detective employed by the husband, not for such purpose but to obtain evidence; Rademacher v. Rademacher, 74 N. J. Eq. 570, 70 Atl. 687; L. R. 2 P. & D. 428. So also abandonment by the wife, knowing (as she said she did) that the husband would naturally seek other women, was held to be connivance; Richardson v. Richardson, 114 N. Y. Supp. 912. Where a husband wilfully abstains from any attempt to prevent misconduct which he must know is likely to occur, he is held to have connived at such misconduct; 33 L. J. Mat. Cas. 161.. C0NN0ISSEMENT. In French Law. An instrument, signed by the master of a ship or his agent, containing a description of the goods loaded on a ship, the persons who have sent them, the persons to whom they were sent, and the undertaking to transport them. A bill of lading. Guyot, R&pert. Univ.; Ord. de la Marine, 1. 3, t. 3, art. 1. CONNUBIUM (Lat). A lawful marriage. See Marriage; Concubinatus. C0N0CIM1ENT0. In Spanish Law. A CONQUEST (Lat. conquiro, to seek for). In Feudal Law. Purchase; any means of obtaining an estate out of the usual course of inheritance. The estate itself so acquired. According to Blackstone and Sir Henry Spelman, the word in its original meaning was entirely dissociated from any connection with the modern idea of military subjugation, but was used solely in the sense of purchase. It is difficult and quite profitless to attempt a decision of the question which has arisen, whether it was applied to William's acquisition of England in its original or its popular meaning. It must be allowed to offer a very reasonable explanation of the derivation of the modern signification of the word, that it was still used at that time to denote a technical purchase — the prevalent method of purchase then, and for quite a long period subsequently, being by driving off the occupant by superior strength. The operation of making a conquest, as illustrated by William the Conqueror, was no doubt often afterwards repeated by his followers on a smaller scale; and thus the modern signification became established. On the other hand, it would be much more difficult to derive a general signification of purchase from the limited modern one of military subjugation. But the whole matter must remain mainly conjectural; and it Is undoubtedly going too far to say, with Burrill, that the meaning assigned by Blackstone Is "demonstrated," or, with Wharton, that the same meaning is a "mere idle ingenuity." Fortumately, the question Is not of the slightest importance in any respect. See 17 L. Q. R. 392. In International Law. The acquisition of the sovereignty of a country by force of arms, exercised by an independent power which reduces the vanquished to submission to its empire. The intention of the conqueror to retain the conquered territory is generally manifested by formal proclamation of annexation, and when this is combined with a recognized ability to retain the conquered territory, the transfer of sovereignty is complete. A treaty of peace based upon the principle of uti pos- 8id<tis (q. v.) is formal recognition of conquest. The effects of conquest are to confer upon the conquering state the public property of the conquered state, and to invest the former with the rights and obligations of the latter; treaties entered into by the conquered state with other states remain binding upon the annexing state, and the debts of the extinct state must be taken over by it. Conquest likewise invests the conquering state with sovereignty over the subjects of the conquered state..Among subjects of the conquered state are to be included persons domiciled in the conquered territory who remain there after the annexation. The people of the conquered state change their allegiance but not their relations to one another. Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. (U. S.) 176, 15 L. Ed. S91. After the transfer of political jurisdiction to the conqueror the municipal laws of the territory continue in force until abrogated by the new sovereign. American Ins. Co. y.

Literally, a winking at; intentional

The secret or indirect consent or permission of one person to the commission of an unlawful or criminal act by another. Literally, a winking at; intentional forbearance to see a fault or other act; generally implying consent to it. Webster. Connivance is the corrupt consent of one party to the commission of the acts of the other, constituting the cause of divorce. Civil Code Cal. § 112. Connivance differs from condonation, though the same legal consequences may attend it. Connivance necessarily involves criminality on the part of the individual who connives; condonation may take place without imputing the slightest blame to the party who forgives the injury. Connivance must be the act of the mind before the offense has been committed; condonation is the result of a determination to forgive an injury which was not known until after it was inflicted. 3 Hagg. Ecc. 350.

5 Intentional failure or forbearance to see or actually know that a tort or offense is being committed; willful neglect to oppose or prevent; specifically, assent or indifference, by a husband, to immoral behavior by his wife. It has been repeatedly held, under 20 and 21 Vict. (1857), c. 66, and similar statutes in this country, that a husband's connivance at his wife's prostitution bars subsequent complaint or cause of action on his part. The connivance ne^d not be active: It is sufficient if it be made to appear that there has been a course of criminal conduct of which he actually was or must have been cognizant. Total indifference may justify inference of original consent. It has also been held that if he once consents to her fall from virtue he cannot complain of any other act naturally resulting from such fall; but that doctrine carried too far would deprive a man of all hope, however repentant he may be, and however he may strive to win his wife to repentance, l^o authority decides that, under all circumstances, connivance at one act is an absolute bar to a divorce for a prior act as to which consent was not given; expressly or by implication." To be a bar to a decree for divorce the fact must appear that the libelant either desired and intended, or at least was willing, that the libelee should err. " A corrupt intention," it has been said, " is necessary to constitute eonnivance." ' See Collusion; Condonation; Crime, Recriminate; Divorce; Volo, Volenti, etc. CONSAiraUINITY.s The connection or relation of persons descended from the same stock or common ancestor; " blood-relationship. Opposed, affinity, q. v. 1 Logan V. The Central R. Co., 74 Ga. 684, 693 (1885). i" [Allison V. Smith, 16 Mich. 433 (1868). s Storer v. Wheattey, 1 Pa. 507 (1845), Gibson, C. J. 4 State V. Georgia, 7 Ired. L. 324 (1847). ^ L. con-nivere, to close the eyes, wink at. ' Morrison v. Mon-ison, 142 Mass. 363-65 (1886), cases. ' Robbins v. Robbius, 140 Mass. 530-31 (1886), eases. See also 2 Bishop, Mar. & D. ^ 17; 34 Am. Law Reg. 98-100 (1886), cases. Consang Tiinei. Blood relations. Consanguineal; consanguineous. Of the same blood or ancestor. The subject is of importance in the law of inheritance and marriage. Lineal consanguinity. Subsists between persons of whom one is descended in a direct line from the other. Collateral consanguinity. Subsists between persons who descend from the same stock or ancestor, but not one from the other, i The common ancestor is the stirps or root, the stirpes, trunk or common stock, whence the relations branch out.' The method of computing degrees in the canon law, adopted into the common law, is, to begin at the common ancestor (propositus) and reckon downward: and in whatever degree the two persons or the most remote of them is distant from the common ancestor, that is the degree in which they are related... The method in the civil law is to coimt upward, from either of the persons related, to the common stock, and then downward to the other, reckoning a degree for each person both ascending and descending. = The canonists take the number of degrees in the longest line; the civilians, the sum of the degrees in both lines.3 The canon law rule prevails in the United States. See Ancestor; Descent; Ikcest.