Identity

Sameness; the state of being the same as something described; the fact that a person or thing is the same as it is represented or charged to be. IDEO (Lat.) Therefore. Calv. Lex. IDEO CONSIDERATUM EST (Law Lat.) Therefore it is considered. The initial words of the ancient entry of judgment in an action at law, and by which that part of the record is sometimes called in modern practice. IDES (Lat.)

In civil law. A day in the month from which the computation of days was made. The divisions of months adopted among the Romans were as follows: The calends occurred on the first day of every month, and were distinguished by adding the name of the month; as, calendis Januarii, the first of January. The nones occurred on the fifth of each month, with the exception of March, July, October, and May, in which months they occurred on the seventh. The ides occurred always on the ninth day after the nones, thus dividing the month equally. In fact, the ides would seem to have been the primal division, occurring in the middle of the month, nearly. Other days than the next succeeding point of division. Thus, the second of April is the quarto nonus Aprilis; the second of March, the sexto nonas Martii; the eighth of March, octavius idus Martii; the eighth of April, sextus idus Aprilis; the sixteenth of March, decimus Septimus calendis Aprilis. This system is still used in some chanceries in Europe, and we therefore give the following: Table of the Calends, Nones, and Ides. Jan., Aug., Dec. March, May, Aniil, June, February 28, 31 days. July, Oct,. Sept,, Nov.. bissextile. 31 days. 30 days. 29 days. 1 Calendis Calendis Calendis Calendis 2 4 Nonas 6 Nonas, 4 Nonas, ' 4 Nonas 3 3 Nonas 5 Nonas 3 Nonas 3 Nonas 4 Ptld. Non. 4 Nonas Prld. Non. Prid. Non. 5 Nonis 3 Nonas Nonis Nonis 6 8 Idus Prid. Non. 8 Idus 8 Idus 7 7 Idus Nonis 7 Idus 7 Idus 8 6 Idus 3 Idus 6 Idus 6 Idus 9 5 Idus 7 Idus 5 Idus 5 Idus 10 4 Idus 6 Idus 4 Idus 4 Idus 11 3 Idus 5 Idus 3 Idus 3 Idus 12 Prld. Idus 4 Idus Prid. Idus Prid. Idus 13 Idlbus 3 Idus Idlbus Idlbus 14 19Caa. Prid. Idus ISCaL 16Cal. 15 ISCal. Idlbus 17CaJ, 15 Cal. 16 17CaI. 17 Cal. 16 Cal 14CaL 17 lecal. 16 Cal. 15 Cal. 13 Cal. IS 15Cal. IS Cal. 14 Cal. 12 Cal. 19 14Cal. 14 Cal. ISCaJ. 11 Cal. 20 13CaI. 13 Cal. 12 Cal. 10 Cal. 21 12 Cal. 12 Cal. 11 Cal. 9 Cal. 22 11C&I. 11 Cal. 10 Cat seal. 23 local. 10 Cal. 9 Cal. 7 Cal. 24 9 Cal. 9 Cal. 8 Cal. 6 Cal. 2S seal. seal. 7 Cal. 5 Cal. 26 7 Cal. 7 Cal. 6 Cal. 4 Cal. 27 seal. 6 Cal. seal. 3 Cal. 28 seal. 5 Cal. 4 Cal. Prid. Csl. 29 4CSL 4 Cal. 3 Cal. 30 3 Cal. 3 Cal. PWd. Csl. 31 Prld. Cal. Prld. Cal. IDIOCHIRA (Gr.)

In civil law. An instrument privately executed, as distinguished from one publicly executed. Vicat.

Sameness. Identity of persons is a phrase applied especially to those cases In which the issue before the jury is, whether a man be the same person with one previously convicted or attainted. 4 Bla. Com. 396; 4 Steph. Com. 468. In cases of larceny the question of the identity of property is for the jury and a verdict will be set aside where the court said In the charge that one of the stolen “bills was positively identified;” Hill v. State, 17 Wis. 675, 86 Am. Dec. 736. The question of identity of a prisoner as well as of property may arise. In a case of larceny of a hog the question of Identity both of prisoner and hog was submitted to the jury; Kelly v. State, 1 Tex. App. 628; and evidence of a confession given by a fellow-prisoner of the accused (who had conversed with him through soil pipes in the gaol) that he recognized him by his voice was allowed to go to the jury on the question of identity; Brown v. Com., 76 Pa. 319. Generally a witness may be permitted to identify an accused solely from having heard his voice; Com. v. Kelly, 186 Mass. 403, 71 N. E. 807; Deal v. State, 140 Ind. 354, 39 N. E. 930; State v. Herbert, 63 Kan. 516, 66 Pac. 235; Mack v. State, 54 Fla. 55, 44 South. 706, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 373, 14 Ann. Cas. 78. As to the modes of identifying different kinds Of personal property, see Harris, Identification, Ch. XIII. And as to the different kinds of evidence resorted to for proving the identity of a prisoner, see id. Ch. IV. As to the identity between an alien immigrant and the accu.sed, descriptive matter in the report of the captain of the ship to the immigration officers, corresponding closely with other evidence relating to him, was allowed to go to the jury; Mcluemey v. U. S., 143 Fed. 729, 74 C. C. A. 655. In cases of larceny, trover, and replevin, the things in question must be identified; 4 Bla. Com. 396. So, too, the identity of articles taken or injured must be proved in all indictments where^ taking property is the gist of the offence, and in actions of tort for damage to specific property. See State v. Vines, 34 La. Ann. 1082. Many other cases occur in which identity must be proved in mortgages, In which this Identification need be such only as would enable identification by a third person aided by Inquiry, and not such as would enable a stranger to select it; Jones, Chat. Mortg. § 54; Smith v. Mc Lean, 24 la. 323; Tindall v. Wasson, 74 Ind. 495; Connally v. Spragins, 06 Ala. 258; Lawrence V. Evarts, 7 Ohio St 194; Gouldiug v. Swett, 13 Gray (Mass.) 617. The question is sometimes one of great practical difficulty, as in case of the death of strangers, reappearance after a long abseuce, and the like. See Ryan, Med. Jur. 301; 1 Beck, Med. Jur. 509; 6 0. & P. G77; Clark v. Pearson, 53 Ga. 490; 1 Hagg. Cons. 180; Shelf. Marr. & D. 226; Best, Pres. App. Case 4; Clark v. Robinson, 88 111. 498; Wills, Circ. Ev. 143: 4 Bla. Com. 396; 4 Steph. Com. 468; Harris, Identif. Identity of the name of a. grantor or grantee is prima facie evidence of identity of the person; Rupert v. I'cnner, 35 Neb. 687, 53 N. W. 598, 17 L. R. A. 824; and a conveyance by a grantee of the same name as the holder of the title Is presumably sufficient; Gilman v. Sheets, 78 la. 499, 43 N. W. 299; even where the names are not identical in spelling, as Savery and Savory; Smith v. Gillum, 80 Tex. 120, 15 S. W. 794; Fink v. Ry. Co., 8 N. Y. Supp. 327. See Idem Sonans. These cases apply a general principle, that a presumption of identity of persons arises from identity of name, and the former is recognized as prima fade evidence of the latter in a great variety of cases; Stebbins v. Duncan, 108 U. S. 47, 2 Sup. Ct. 313, 27 L. J3d. 641; Long v. Mc Dow, 87 Mo. 197; State v. Mc Guire, id. 042; 4 Q. B. 020; Hatcher v. Rocheleau, 18 N. Y. 86; Ward v. Dougherty, 75 Cal. 249, 17 Pac. 193, 7 Am. St. Rep'. 151; Campbell v. Wallace, 46 Mich. 320, 9 N. W. 432; Grindle v. Stone, 78 Me. 176, 3 Atl. 183; ■ Bogue V. Bigelow, 29 Vt. 179; Wilson v. Holt, 83 Ala. 528, 3 South. 321, 3 Am. St. Rep. 708; Robertson v. Du Bose, 76 “J^ex. 1, 13 S. W. SOjO; contra, 9 M. &.W. 75; Robards v. Wolfe, 1 Dana (Ky.) 156; Kinney v. Flynn, 2 R. I. 319; Ellsworth v. Moore, 5 la. 486; Mooers V. Bunker, 29 N. H. 420. But it has been held that it is a question for the jury to determine the Identity of a grantor with the former grantee: Carleton v. Townsend, 28 Cal. 221; or whether a person pleading former conviction is the same party; State v. Robinson, 89 Me. 154; or a person bearing the name of a deceased is one of his heirs; Freeman v. Loftis, 51 N. C. 528. The identity of a family name and initials raises no presumption of identity; Bennett v. Libhart, 27 Mich. 489. As between father and son of the same name it is presumed that the former Is intended if there is no distinguishing mark; Padgett v. Lawrence, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 170, 40 Am. Dec. 232; Graves v. Colwell, 90 111. 612; 1 Stark. 106; State v. Vlttum, 9

In the law of evidence. Sameness; the fact that a subject, person, or'thing before a court is the same as it is represented, claimed, or charged to bs. See Burrlll, Circ. Ev. 382, 453, 631, 644.

In patent law. Such sameness between two designs, inventions, combinations, etc., as will constitute the one au infringement of the patent granted for the other. To constitute "identity of invention," and therefore infringement, not only must the result obtained be the same, but, in case the means used for its attainment is a combination of known elements, the elements combined in both cases must be the same, and combined iu the same way, so that each element shall perform the same function ; provided that the differences alleged are not merely colorable according to the rule forbidding the use of known equivalents. Electric Railroad Signal Co v. Hall Railroad Signal Co., Il4 U. S. 87, 5 Sup. Ct. 1069, 29 In Ed. 96; Latta v. Shawk, 14 Fed. Cas. 1188. "Identity of design" means sameness of appearance, or, in other words, sameness of effect upon the eye,—not the eye of an expert, but of an ordinary intelligent observer. Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U. S. 674, 13 Sup. Ct 768, 37 L. Ed. 606.

The fact that a subject, person or thing before a court is the same as it is represented, claimed or charged to be; sameness.

In the law of evidence. Sameness; the fact that a subject, person, or thing before a court is the same as it is rep-

Sameness. 1. In larceny, trover, detinue, and replevin, the thing in question must be identified; so in torts, for damage done to specific property; and so in all indictments where the taking of property is the gist. Identity of person must be proven in all criminal prosecutions. '8 In the ordinary case of buying and selling for cash, the identity of the parties is entirely immaterial; and in many cases where that matter is material, a party is estopped by his dealing with the other f roin saying that he was mistaken as to the person.'* See Abbak^n; Confusion, Of goods; Description; Name. 3. Property transferred in fraud of creditors may be subjected to the payment of their claims upon identification of the property; as, in the case of personalty given to a wife.^o One who obtains property by fraud acquires no title to it, but he and all transferees with notice are trustees for the original owner, who may recover the property as long as it can be traced and identified in its ' Myer v. Fegaley, 39 Pa. 429 (1861). ?Alvordu Moffatt, lOInd. 366 (1858). ■ Bergman's Appeal, 88 Pa. 120 (18T8). < Cato 11. Hutson, 7 Mo. 143 (1841). ' Morton v. Mo Clure, 23 111. 357 (1859). » Jeffries v. Bartlett, 75 Ga. 232 (1885). ' Marr v. Wetzel, 3 Col. 5 (1876). » Elliott V. EJiott, 14 Md. 121 (1859). ' Stanley v. Noble, 59 Iowa, 410 (1882) '» Rowe V. Palmer, 29 Kan. 337 (1883). " Power V. Woo Uey, 31 Ark. 462 (1860). '=Marx V. Hanthom, 30 F. R. 686 (1887). 'S United States v. Spintz, 18 P. E. 377 ( '* City of Lafayette v. Wortman, 107 Ind. 404 (1886). 's Smurr v. State, 88 Ind. 506 (1883), oases; 107 id. 410. '« Siebert v. State, 95 Ind. 470 (1884). See 1 Bish. Cr. Pr. § 688; 1 Whart. Cr. L. 309. "■Commonwealth r. Warren, 143 Mass. 569 (1887), in which "Celestia" and " Celeste " were found to be the same name; other cases cited. ■e See 4 Bl. Com. 396; 3 Crim. Law Mag. 387; 34 La. An. 1083. '* Clement v. British American Assurance Co., 141 origiiial or substituted form.i See ad fin. Trust, 1; Conceal, 1. 8. Of literary composition, consists in the sentiment and the language: the same conception clothed in the same words must necessarily be the same composition," S. Identity of designs, etc. See Design, 2; Patent, 2.

evidence, sameness. It is frequently to idenriaasag tify persons and things. In criminal prosecutions, and in actions for torts and on contracts, it is required to be proved that the defendants have in criminal actions, and for injuries, been guilty of the crime or injury charged, and in an action on a conculty occur, in consequence omission to take particular 2 Stark. Cas. 239; Ryan’s Jur. 301; and in consequence the great resemblance of two sons. 1 Hali’s Am. Law Journ. In cases of larceny, trover, and the like, the things in must always be identified. Bl. Com. 396.