Nient
Defined in 4 dictionaries — Ballentine's (1916), Black's (1910), Kinney (1893), Abbott (1879)
Ballentine's Law Dictionary
James A. Ballentine · 1916
Black's Law Dictionary
Henry Campbell Black, M.A. · 1910
In Fr. Nothing; not.
— Nient comprise. Not comprised; not included. An exception taken to a petition because the thing desired is not contained in that deed or proceeding whereon the petition is founded. Tomlins.
— Nient culpable. Not guilty. The name in law French of the general issue in tort or in a criminal action.
— Nient dedire. To say nothing; to deny nothing; to suffer judgment by default.
— Nient le fait. In pleading. Not the deed; not his deed. The same as the plea of non est factum.
— Nient seisi. In old pleading. Not seised. The general plea in the writ of annuity. Crabb, Eng. Law, 424.
A Law Dictionary and Glossary
George C. Kinney · 1893
?. fr.
In old English law. Not; nothing. included. Nient contristeant, nient obstant: Nient culpable: not guilty; the name for the dedire: to deny nothing; to suffer judgment by given to that clause in a suggestion in which fact suggested is not denied. Nient le fait: not formerly given to the general issue of non est meins: nevertheless. Nient nostre fait: not our not seised; the general plea in the writ of annuity. not his deed.
Dictionary of Terms and Phrases Used in American or English Jurisprudence
Benjamin Vaughan Abbott · 1879
A law-French negative. Nieut culpable. Not guilty. The name in law French of the plea of not guilty, either in a criminal prosecution or an action for tort. Nieut dedire. To say nothing; to deny nothing; to suffer judgment by default. The phrase is also used as the name of a clause in a suggestion which states that the fact suggested to the court is not denied. Nient Is fait. Not the deed. The name of a plea denying the having made a deed, or of the general issue formed by such a plea; equivalent in law French to the Latin non est factum, q. v. Nigrum nunquam excedere debet rubrum. The black should never go beyond the red. The text of a statute should never be read in a sense more comprehensive than the rubric, or title. This rule (given by Sir George Mackenzie in his works, vol. ii. p. 139) does not hold in modern law. The rubric is not a part of a statute: it is a mere index, and may be right or wrong. The rubric can never be read as modifying or explaining the text of the statute. title and preamble of the act (which in themselves, although parts of the statiite, have no practical or operative effect) may be read as throwing light upon the intention of the legislature, and so serve to clear away the ambiguity, and lead to a reasonable and proper construction of that clause which is doubtful. Trayn. Max.