Mutiny

In criminal law. The unlawful resistance to a superior oflicer, or the raising of commotions and disturbances on board of a ship against the authority of its commander, or in the army in opposition to the authority of the officers; a sedition; a revolt.

In Criminal Law. The unlawful resistance of a superior officer, or the raising of commotions and disturbances on board of a ship against the authority of its commander, or in the army in opposition to the authority of the officers; a sedition; a revolt See Whart Cr. L. § 1876. Art. 22 of the United States Articles of War provides: Any officer or soldier, who begins, excites, causes, or Joins in any mutiny or sedition, in any troop, battery, company, party, post, detachment, or guard, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as a court-martial shall direct. Art. 23: Any officer or soldier who, being present at any mutiny or sedition, does not use his utmost endeavors to suppress the same, or, having knowledge of any intended mutiny or sedition does not without delay give information thereof to his commanding officer, shall suffer death, or) such other punishment as a court-martial may direct. Sedition is the raising of a commotion or disturbance with a view to create a mutiny or to Incite revolt against military authority. Davis, MU. L. 390 As to mutiny, see U. S. v. Smith, 1 Mas. 147, Fed Cas. No. 16,337; U. 8. T. Kelly; 4 Wash. C. C. 628, Fed. Cas. No. 15,616; U. S. v. Borden, 1 Spra. 876, Fed. Cas. No. 14,625. Art. 4 of the navy provides the punishment of death, or such other punishment as a court-martial may adjudge, for any person in the naval service “who makes or attempts to make, or unite with any mutiny or mutinous assembly, or, being witness to or present at any mutiny, does not do his utmost to suppress it; or, knowing of any mutinous assembly or any Intended mutiny, does not imme- - Mutiny, reroll^ and the endeavor to make a revolt «r mutiny, oh board mercbant-veseels, are made criminal, and a punishment provided for them; R. S. 8 4596 (amended 1898); U. S. v. Nye, 2 Curt 0. C. 226, Fed. Cae. No. 15,906; U. S. v. Petveon, 1 Woodb. ft M. 306, Fed. Oas. No. 16,037; U..8. v. Caseedy, 2 Sumn. C. C. 682, Fed. Cae. No. 14,746.

In criminal law. An insurrection of soldiers or seamen against the authority of their commanders; a sedition or revolt in the army or navy. See The Stacey Clarke (D. C.) 54 Fed. 533; McCargo v. New Orleans Ins. Co., 10 Rob. (La.) 313, 43 Am. Dec. 180.

— Mutiny act. In English law. An act of parliament annually passed to punish mutiny and desertion. 1 Bl. Comm. 415.

Resistance, by soldiers or seamen, of their ofl Bcers, or their authority.

Incriminal law. An insurrection of soldiers or seamen against tl.e authority of their commanders; a sedition or revolt in the army or navy,

' Insurrection against authority; reyolt against discipline,; resistance of officers, by sailors, soldiers, or marines. Mutinous. Tending toward mutiny: as, mutinous conduct or words.* See Revolt.

The offence of rebellion against discipline, or resistance of officers, committed by sailors, soldiers, or marines. Mutiny is now, by military men, generally understood to imply collective insubordination, or rising against or resisting military authority in combination or simultaneously, with or without actual violence. A distinction has been drawn between mutinous conduct and mutiny; mutinous conduct being behavior tending to mutiny, which may, nevertheless, be clear of the completion or commission of that offence. Formerly, however, individual acts were frequently charged as mutiny, as the opposing by force any act ordered to be done; or any act of violence done to the person of any officer in the execution of his duty. Simmons Ct. Mar. §§ 170, 171; Hickman Nai:. Ct. Mar. ch. 21. Similarly, a collective insubordination of the crew of a ship, whether a ship of war or a merchant vessel, is spoken of as mutiny. Mutiny act. An act of parliament to ), punish mutiny and desertion, and for the better regulation of the army and their quarters; also, appropriating their pay. The mutiny act, properly so called, relates to the army only; the marine mutiny act relates to the navy. Each act is passed annually, the jealousy of the constitution for the individual's liberties being such as not to tolerate that'such acts, or the jurisdictions which they establish, should become perpetual or permanent. This necessity for their annual re-enactment secures the annual reassembling of parliament. ^ MUTUAL. Interchangeable; reciprocal; spoken of an engagement or relation in which like duties and obligations are exchanged. Mutual should be distinguished from common, which (in one of its senses) signifies that two or more persons have the same or similar interests or rights in the subject-matter: thus, a field may be common to several persons, when all may enjoy it alike; but cannot be several persons unite in insuring each other, so that the engagements are reciprocal. Mutual account. This phrase is used in provisions in many statutes of limitations, declaring that, when the suit is founded upon mutual accounts, the time for suing may be reckoned from the last item proved; or the like. Such provisions call for an account of each party involving original charges against the other. The exception in the statute of limitations requires an account in writing. Theobald V. Stinson, 38 Me. 149. Where the items of an account are all on one side, it is not a mutual, open, or current account, within the meaning of the statute of limitations. Fraylor v. Sonora, &c. Co., 17 Cal. 594. An account where there are no credits except payments is not mutual, open, and current, within the statute. Buntin v. Lagow, 1 Black/. 373; Knipe v. Knipe, 2 Id. 340; Prenatt w. Runyon, 12 Ind. 174; Weatherwax v. Cosumnes, &c. Co., 17 Cal. 344; Adams v. Patterson, 35 Td. 122; Dyer V. Walker, 51 Me. 104; Peek v. N. Y., &c. S. S. Co., 5 Bosw. 226. A mutual or open account-current exists where there is an express or implied understanding that mutual debts shall be a satisfaction or set-of£ pro tanto between the parties. Mc Neil v. Garland, 27 Ark. 343. Mutual combat. Does not necessarily imply reciprocal blows. If a mutual intent to fight exists, there is a mutual combat, though the first blow kills one of the parties. Tate V. State, 46 Ga. 148. Mutual credits. By this phrase, in the rule under which courts of equity allow set-off in cases of mutual credit, we are to understand -a knowledge on both sides of an existing debt due to one party, and a credit by the other party, founded on and trusting to such debt, as a means of discharging it. King V, King, 9 N. J. Eg. 44. A premium note given for a policy of insurance, and a loss incurred under the policy, are mutual credits, within the meaning of 2 N. y. Rev. Stat. 47, § 36, and the insured is entitled to offset the loss against the note, although, by the terms of the policy, the loss was not payable until some time after proof of loss, and no proof was furnished until after the insolvency of the insurers. Pardo v. Osgood, 5 Robt. 348. " Mutual credit " is not confined to pecuniary demands, but may include goods belonging to a debtor. Exp. Deeze, 1 Atk. 228. Where there is a trust between both parties there is a mutual credit. Atkinson v. Elliott, 7 Dum. ^ E. 378. Mutual debts. The expressions " mutset-off, are of the same import. Pate v. Gray, 1 Hempst. 155. Mutual insurance. That form of insurance in which various persons unite in an engagement to indemnify each other against losses; so that the contracts are reciprocal, — each member insures the others, and is in turn insured by them. Companies formed on this principle are known as mutual insurance companies. Mutual mistake. Some confusion and misconception has crept into the cases on equitable relief from mistake, from the inexact use of the word mutual, as defining or classifying the kind of mistakes which the courts will reform. According to the real signification of the word, it would mean a mistake reciprocal, shared by both parties. The inaccurate use of the word in cases on mistake has led to the idea that mistakes in contracts will not be corrected where the error was confined to one of the parties. Such is not the rule. Botsford v. Mc Lean, 45 Barb. 478. Mutual obligations, or promises. Such as are reciprocally exchanged, at the same time. In a declaration in special assumpsit the plaintiff usually alleges that, in consideration that he, at the request of the defendant, had then promised the defendant to observe, perform, and fulfil all things in the agreement on his (the plaiintiEE's) part, the defendant promised the plaintiff that he would perform and fulfil all things in the said agreement on his (the defendant's) part, to be observed and performed, which is thence termed the allegation or statement of mutual promises. Mozley §■ W. MUTUALITY of a contract means an obligation on each to do, or permit to be done, something in consideration of the act or promise of the other. Spear v. Orendorf, 26 Md. 37. MUTUANT; MUTUARY. The lender and the borrower, respectively, in the contract of mutuum.

crimes, is the unlawful resistance of a superior ofhcer, or the raising of commotions and disturbances on board of a ship against the authority of its commander, or in the army in opposition to the authority of the oflicers; a sedition, (q. v-); a revolt, (q. v-) By the act for establishing rules and articles for the government of the armies of the United States, it is enacted as follows: Article 7, Any officer or soldier who shall begin, excite, or cause, or join in, any mutiny or sedition in any troop or company in the service of the United States, or in any party, post, detachment or guard, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as by a court martial shall be inflicted. Article 8, Any officer, non-commissioned officer, or soldier, who being present at any mutiny or sedition, does not use his utmost endeavours to suppress the same, or coming to the knowledge of any intended mutiny, does not without delay give information thereof to his commanding officer, shall be punished by the sentence of a court martial, with death, or otherwise, according to the navy of the United States, it is enacted as follows: Article 13, If any person in the navy shall make or attempt to make any mutinous assembly, he shall, on conviction thereof by a court martial, suffer death; and if any person as aforesaid shall utter any seditious or nutinous words, or shall conceal or connive at any mutinous or seditious practices, or shall treat‘ with contempt his superior, being in the execution of his ofhce, or being witness to any mutiny or sedition, shall not do his utmost to suppress it, he shall be punished at the discretion of a court martial. Vide 2 Stra. R. 1264.