Optulit

An old form of obtulit, used in Bracton, Bracton, fols. 354, 354b. OPUS (Lat. and Law Lat.)

In civil and old English law. Work; labor; benefit; advantage. This word seems to have been framed from the Law French oeps (q. v.) A thing made or done by labor. OPUS LOCATUM (Lat.)

In civil law. A work, i. e., the result of work, let to another to be used. A work, i. e., something to be completed by work, hired to be done by another. Vicat, "Opus," "Locare;" L. 51, § 1, D. "Locat.;" L. 1, § 1, D. ad leg. Rhod. OPUS MAGNIFICIUM (or MANIFICIUM) (from Lat. opus, work; manus, hand).

In old English law. Manual labor. Fleta, lib. 2, c. 48, §3.

See Obtulit. OB. This disjunctive particle, and the conjunction "and," are frequently read interchangeably in the construction of instruments: this is done, however, as a matter of construction, and to effectuate the intent of parties, and not in any views depending on the proper ipieaning of the words. With respect to wills, in particular, the books abound in cases in which "or" in a will has been read "and," and vice versa. But the ground is that, in view of the context and attendant circumstances, the change is necessary to accomplish the evident design. " Or," in its ordinary signification, corresponds to either; meaning one or the other of two, but not both. It is sometimes construed to mean " and," when such construction appears clearly necessary to give effect to a clause in a will, or to some legislative provision; but never to change a contract at pleasure. Indeed, to say that " or " can ever mean " and " seems to be an inaccurate expression. It should rather be said, that for strong reasons, and in conformity with a clear intention, " or " has been changed or removed, and " and " substituted in its place. Douglass v. Eyre, Gilp. 147. Compare United States v. Haun, 8 Am. Law Reg. 663. The rule is well settled, that, in construing a will, when the change becomes necessary to carry into effect an evident or clearly shown intent of the testator, " or " may be read " and," or " and " construed as " or." Cornish o. Wilson, 6 Gill. 299; Sawyer v. Baldwin, 20 Pick. 378; Roome v. Phillips, 24 N. Y. 463. But this change or substitution can never be made, unless the context or clearly established intention of the testator requires it. Sawyer e. Baldwin, 20 Pick. 378; Holcomb w. Lake, 24 N../. L. 686; Armstrong v. Moran, 1 Bra(lf. 314. " Or," in a limitation over, means " and," where the effect of construing it disjunctively would be to disinherit the issue of the devisee. Kaborg v. Hammond, 2 Harr. Sr G. 42. " Or " was construed as " and " in a bond payable to " Squire Parker or Thomas Parker," from evidence introduced to prove the consideration under the scaling laws, in Parker v. Carson, 64 N. C. 563. A bond to prosecute with effect, or perform, is good, though in the statute the word is " and " instead of " or." Robinson V. Brinson, 20 Tex. 438. In an appointment of a person to act as "agent or surveyor" of a tire insurance ing Fire Ins. Co. v. Woodworth, 83 Pa. St. 223. The rule which allows " and " to be read " or " cannot be applied to sustain an affidavit to obtain a discharge in insolvency, which declares that the debtor has not disposed of any property for the future benefit of himself and family, when the statute under which the discharge is sought requires an affidavit that he has not disposed of any for the benefit of himself or family. Sacli affidavit only negatives a disposal for the joint benefit of the debtor and his family; whereas the object of the statute is to secure proof that none has been made for the benefit of either. Hall v. Sweet, 40 N. Y. 97. In an action of trespass for an injury done by a dog to the plaintiff's sheep, brought on a statute that " every owner or keeper of any dog shall forfeit to any person injured by such dog double the amount of the damage sustained by him," the declaration charged the defendants as the owners and keepers of the dog which did the mischief. It was held that the plaintiff must prove that the defendants were both the owners and the keepers of the dog; to prove that they were either the owners or the keepers was not enough. Buddmgton v. Shearer, 20 Pick. 477. The use of " or," instead of " and," in an indictment, is fatal only where it renders the statement of the offence uncertain; People V. Gilkinson, 4 Park. Cr. R. 26. When necessary to harmonize the provisions of a statute, or give effect to all of its provisions, the word " or " may be read as " and," and conversely. State v. Brandt, 41 Iowa, 593. " And " cannot be construed to mean " or " in a penal statute. United States v. Ten Cases of Shawls, 2 Paine, 162. " Or," in a statute imposing punishment if any person shall place obstructions in a watercourse, whereby the flow of water is lessened, or navigation impeded, was read "and," in State v. Pool, 74 N. C. 402. " Break or enter," in the Pa. act of 1860, § 135, defining burglary, means "break and enter." Rolland v. Commonwealth, 82 Pa. St. 306, 326. "And" was construed to mean "or," in the supplementary statute of 186.3, ch. 78,, § 2, prescribing " fine and imprisonment," &c.; the original law (Gen. Sts. ch. 87, § 7) reading " fine or imprisonment," &c., in, Commonwealth v. Griffin, 105 Mass. 185. " And " was construed to mean " or," for which it had been substituted in codifying former statutes, which its conjunctive sense would operate a repeal of, in Hughes v. Smith, 64 N. C. 493. "Or" means "and," in the clause "unlawful or forcible entry," in the re-enacted forcible entry law of Wisconsin, notwithstanding the substitution. Winterfield v. Stauss, 24 Wis. 394. without which, or other equivalent words, the instrument will not possess that quality. Mechanics' Bank v. Straiten, 3.466. App. Dec. 269. Or other. An indictment for selling spirituous liquors without license, in charging the kinds of liquors sold, used the words " or other spirituous liquors." Held, that the use of the disjunctive was not a defect. Morgan v. Commonwealth, 7 Gratt. 692. Or otherwise. In the act of July 6, 1812, punishing one who transports in any wagon, &c., or otherwise, any munitions of war, &c., plainly means the thing by which the articles are transported, when the punishment by way of forfeiture is prescribed. United States v. Sheldon, 2 Wheat. 119, 211.