Incompatibility

Incapability of existing or being exercised together. Thus, the relations of landlord and of tenant cannot exist in one man at the same time in reference to the same land. Two Const. U. S. art. 6, § 3, note 5; Id. art. 1, § 6, note 2; 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 277: 17 Serg. & R; (Pa.) 219. See "Office."

Incapability of existing or being exercised together. l^us the relations of landlord and of tenant cannot exist in one n)an at the same time in reference to the same land. Two offices may be incompatible either from their nature or by statutory provisions. See U. S. Const, art. 6, § 3, n. 5, art. 1, § 6, n. 2; Com. V. Sheriff & Keeper of Jail, 4 S. & R. (Pa.) 277; People v. Green, 46 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 170; State v. Buttz, 9 S. C. 179; Office. Incompatibility is ordinarily not a ground for divorce; Trowbridge v. Carlin, 12 La. Ann. 882; Pinkney v. Pinkney, 4 G. Greene (la.) 324; though in some states it is. See Divobce.

offices, rights; this term is used to show that two or more things ought not to be at the same time in the same person; for example, a man cannot at the same time be landlord and tenant of the same land; heir and devisee of the same thing; trustee and cestui que trust of the same property. There are offices which are incompatible with each other by constitutional provision; the vicepresident of the United States cannot act as such when filling the office of president; Const. art. 1, s. 3,n. 5; and by the same instrument, art. 1, s. 6,n. 2, it is directed that “no senator or representative, shall during the time for which he was elected be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased, during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house, during his continuance in office.” Provisions rendering offices incompatible are to be found in most of the constitutions of the states and in some of their laws. In Pennsylvania the acts of the 12th of February, 1802, 3 Smith’s Laws of Pa. 485; and 6th of March, 1812, 5 Sm. L. Pa. 309, contain various provisions making certain offices incompatible with each French law, is the state of a judge who cannot take cognizance of a dispute brought before him; a want of jurisdiction. Incompetency is material, ratione materia, or personal, ratione persone. The first takes place when a judge takes cognizance of a matter over which another judge has the sole jurisdiction, and this cannot be cured by the appearance or agreement of the parties. The second is when the matter in dispute is within the jurisdiction of the judge, but the parties in the case are not, in which case they make the judge competent unless they make their objection before they take defence. Merl. Rép. mot Incompétence. It isa maxim in the common law, aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa. Co. Litt. 141 a; see 14 Vin. Abr. 573; 4 Com. Dig. 6.