Non user

The neglect to make use of a thing. A right which may be acquired by use may be lost by 11011 -user; and an absolute discontinuance of the use for twenty years affords presumption of the extinguishment of the right in favor of some other adverse right; Dyer v. Depui, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 584; Williams v. Nelson, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 141, 34 Am. Dec. 45; but non-user of the franchise of a corporation is held insufficient to constitute a dissolution of the same without a judicial adjudication thereof; Parker v. Hotel Co., 96 Tenn. 252, 34 S. W. 209, 31 I/. B. A. 700. See Dissolution; Forfeiture. A right of way, by grant or prescription, is not extinguished by the habitual use by its owner of another way, equally convenient, instead of it, unless there is an intentional abandonment of the former way; Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corp. v. Chandler, 121 Mass. 3. See Abandonment; Easement. Every public officer is required to use his office for the public good; a non-user of a public office is, therefore, a sufficient cause of forfeiture; 2 Bla. Com. 153; 9 Co. 50. As to repeal of a statute by non-user, see Obsolete.

Neglect to use. Neglect to use a franchise; neglect to exercise an office. 2 Bl. Comm. 153. Neglect or omission to use an easement or other right. 3 Kent, Comm. 448. A right acquired by use may be lost by non-user.

is the neglect to make use of a thing. A right which may be acquired by use, may be lost by non-user, and an absolute discontinuance of the use for twenty years affords presumption of the extinguishment of the right, in favour of some other adverse right. As an enjoyment for twenty years is necessary to found the presumption of a grant of an easement, the general rule is, there must be a similar non-user to raise the presumption of a release. But in this case the owner of the servient premises must have done some act inconsistent with, or adverse to the existence of the right. See 2 Evans’s Pothier, 136; 10 Mass. R. 183; 3 Campb. R. 514; 3 Kent, Com. 359; 1 Chit. Pr. 284, 285, 757 to 759, n. (8); 1 Ves. jr. 6,8; 2 Supp. to Ves. jr. 442.. In the civil law there is a similar doctrine: on this subject, vide Dig. &, 6, 5; Voet, Com. ad Pand. lib. 8, tit. 6,s. 5et 7; 3 Toull. n. 673; Merl. Répert. mot Servitude, § 30, n. 6, and § 33; Civ. Code of Louis. art. 815, 816.