Presume

To' take or assume a matter beforehand, without proof; to take for granted. Infer is stronger than presume. The law does not.presume, much less infer, fraud." See Infer. Presumption. Next to positive is circumstantial evidence, or the doctrine of presumptions. When a fact cannot itself be demonstrated, that which comes nearest to 1 R. S, § 1642; Acts 28 Feb. 1795, 3 March, 1807. 2 Constitution, Art. II, sec. 2, cl, 2. " Had the consent of the Senate been made necessary to displace &s well as to appoint, the Executive would have suffered degradation; and the relative importance of the House of Representatives a grave diminution." 2 Bancroft, Const. 191. 3 Constitution, Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 3. * Constitution, Ai*t. H, sec. 3. ^ Ibid., sec. 4. Seegenerally 2 Bancroft, Const. 166-94; proof of it is proof of the circumstances necessarily, or usually, attending it: this proof creates a presumption, which is relied upon till the contrary is established.! Presumptive evidence proceeds upon the theory that the jiuy can infer the existence o£ a fact from another fact that is proved, and which most usually accompanies it.'* Presumption of law. A rule which, in certain cases, either forbids or dispenses with any ulterior inquiry.' A judicial postulate that a particular predicate is universally assignable to a particular subject.^ It is founded upon the first principles of justice, a law 01" laws of nature, or the experienced course of human conduct and affairs, and the connection usually found to exist between certain things.^ Derives its force from jurisprudence. Probability is not necessary to it. It relieves from producing evidence. Its conditions are fixed and uniform. It is irrebuttable or absolute, and rebuttable or provisional.* Conclusive, imperative, or absolute presumptions of law. Rules determining the quantity of evidence requisite to support any particular averment, which may not be overcome by proof that the fact is otherwise.' Cases in which the long experienced connection between things has been found so uniform as to make it expedient for the common good that this cormectiou be taken as inseparable and universal,^ and indisputable. Disputable or rebuttable presumptions of law. These are such presumptions as may be overcome by opposing proof: that facts, usually together, were so in a given case.* The law infers one fact from the proved existence of its common companion; directs how much shall be proved to make a prima facie case, and that that may be overcome by counter-proof.* Presumption of fact. A mere argument upon the facts in a case; a natural presumption derived wholly and directly from the circumstances of the particular case, by means of the common experience of mankind, without the aid or control of rules of law.* ' [.3 Bl. Com. 371.] ' Home Ins. Co. v. Weide, 11 Wall. 440 (1870), Davis, J. See also 26 Ala. 30; 66 Ind. 438; 11 Me. 146; 34 N. H. 365; 27 N. J. L. ISO, 153; 6 Wend. 181; 7 id. 66; 97 Pa. 34; 16 Vt. 71; 12 Wis. 257. ' [1 Greerd. Ev. § 14; Improvement Co. v. Munson, 14 Wall. 449 (1871). 1 1 Whart. Ev. ch. XTV. » 1 qireenl. Ev. §33; 39 Minn. 15. A logical argument from a fact to a fact; an argument which infers a fact otherwise doubtful from a fact already proved.! An inference of the existence of a certain fact arising from its necessary and usual connectiort with other facts which are known.2 Derives its force from logic. To it probability is necessary. It requires evidence. Its conditions fluctuate. ^ There are certain departments of scientific knowledge where an entire series of facts or forms may always be inferred from the existence of any one, according to the maxim ex pede Herculem. The conclusion in such cases is deduced from the observed uniformity of physical nature, which by a necessity of our own minds we believe to be invariable. But this mode of reasoning has but a very limited application in the law of evidence as judicially applied to ascertain the facts and motives of human conduct. It is the foundation of the doctrine of presumptions to the extent to which they are admitted. ^ Psychological presumptions. These are of knowledge of law; of ^ fact from a known fact; of innocence; of love of life; of good faith; of sanity; of prudence; against danger; as to supremacy of husband; of intent as to probable consequences; of malice; against a spoliator.* Physical presumptions. Of incompetency through infancy; of identity; of death; of survivorship in a common catastrophe; of loss of a ship from lapse of time.* Presumptions of uniformity and continuance. As to residence, occupancy, habit, coverture, solvency, value; that foreign law is like our law; as to constancy of nature — of physical sequence, animal habits, conduct of men in masses.* Presumptions of regularity. As to marriage, and legitimacy; negotiation of paper; judicial proceedings; dates; formalities of documents; appointments of officers and agents; acts of public officers, of business and professional men; of the due delivery of letters.* Presumptions of title. In favor of possession of realty — not tortious, and independent; and of personalty— as to vessels, and papers; that the proprietor adjacent to a road owns the soil thereof; as to ownership of hedges, land covered by water, alluvion, trees, and minerals. Missing links are proven from long possession, and grants from lapse of time. Applied, also, to licenses from use.* Presumption as to payment. This arises after the lapse of twenty years.' " Facts presumed are as effectually established as facts proved, where no presumption is allowed." * 1 1 Whart. Ev. ch. XIV. 2 Roberts u People, 9 Col. 474 (1886), Beck, C. J. * Sabariego v. Maverick, 124 U. S. 395 1(1888), Matthews, J. « 2 Whart. Ev. §§ 1240-69. >2Whart. Ev. §§1270-S3. « 2 Whart. Ev. §§ 1331-S9. If the evidence offered conduces in a Hy reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in controversy, it should go to the jury.^ Inferences from Inferences are not permitted: only immediate inferences from facts proved. If the presumed fact has no immediate connection with or re- ^ lation to the established fact from which it is inferred, it is regarded as too remote. Thus, the presumption that a public officer has done his duty does not supply proof of independent and substantial facts.^ In a case where the ultimate fact was whether a renewal premium had been paid to the defendant, it was held that the jury could not infer (1) that the policy did not lapse but was renewed; (2) that the renewals were paid to the plaintiff's sub-agent; and (3) paid over by the agent to the defendant. ^ A judge, in deciding that evidence of a particular circumstance is not receivable, impliedly decides that no presumption can be drawn from it which ought to have effect with the jury. A presumption which the jury is to draw is not a circumstance in proof, and it is not, therefore, a legitimate foundation for a presumption. There is no " open and visible connection " between the facts out of which the two presumptions arise.* An inference from an inference, if allowed at all, has little probative force.* See PRiESUMPTio; Evidence.

To presume, in the judicial sense, seems to mean to deterprobabilities inferred from such evidence as is exhibited, or by some rule of public policy or positive law. Presumption is an act of deciding, or a rule for deciding, a question which the dii-ect evidence leaves doubtful, by consideration of the probabilities, or in obedience to a rule of law deemed best adapted to determine questions of that nature. It is unfortunate that there are not two distinct names in use for what are known as presumptions of law and presumptions of fact; for the difference in their nature and grounds is marked and important. The latter class are founded on actual probability. Some evidence having been introduced, it is found, on consideration, to be feeble and inconclusive; nevertheless, it raises a probability, the mind inclines to infer from it a certain fact; hence, if nothing to the contrary can be proved, the controversy may often (in civil cases more particularly) be decided by assuming the probable fact to be true. Presumptions of this class have only a prima facie operation; they may be, in general, rebutted by counter-evidence of facts establishing a different probability. But it is impossible to sustain the doctrine of presumptions of law on the theory that they rest on a probability of fact. The presumption of title founded on twenty years' adverse possession; the presumption of payment of a simple-contract debt more than six years old; the presumption of incapacity to commit crime, in an infant under seven years; and numerous similar rules, — do not rest on a mere probability in each case that the fact is as the rule would have it, but are peremptory rules of law, resting on authority, judicial or legislative, established for the sake of securing peace and quieting litigation, and just as applicable and controlling when the circumstances of the case indicate a counter-probability. Presume ■ and intend, presumption and intendment, are nearly interchangeable terms. A presumption is that which is presumed or believed in the absence of any direct evidence to the contrary. Legitimate presumptions have been denominated violent sumptions as are drawn from inadequate grounds are termed light or rash presumptions. Brown, Presumptions are divided into prmsumptiones juris et de jure, otherwise called irrebuttable presumptions (often, but not necessarily, fictitious), which the law will not suffer to be rebutted by any counter-evidence; as, that an infant under seven years is not responsible for his actions; prcesumptiones juris tantum, which liold good in the absence of counter-evidence, but against which counter-evidence may be admitted; and prcesumptiones hominis, which are not necessarily conclusive, though no proof to the contrary be adduced. (Aust. Jur. lect. 26; 3 StepL Com. 545, note; Pow. Evid. 4thed. 70.) Modey ^ W. The principle of the law, that every man (including a prisoner brought up for trial) is to be presumed innocent till his guilt is established, cannot, of course, mean that we are to take for granted he is innocent; for, if that were the case, he would be entitled to immediate liberation: nor does it mean that it is antecedently more liliely than not that he is innocent, or that the majority of those brought to trial are so. According to the most correct use of the term, a presumption in favor of any supposition means not a preponderance of probability in its favor, but such a preoccupation of the ground as implies that the rule presumed must stand good till some sufficient reason is adduced against it. It evidently means only that the burden of proof lies with the accusers,■' that the accused is not to be called on to prove his innocence, or to be dealt with as a criminal, till they have done so; but that they are to bring their charges against hira, which, if he can repel, he stands acquitted. Wharton, citing Whately Bhet. Ft. L eh. 3, § 2. Presumptions are consequences which the law or judge draws from a fact known to a fact unknown. Presumptions not established by law are left to the judgment and discretion of the judge. Cronan u. New Orleans, 16 La. Ann. 374. A presumption is an inference as to the existence of a fact not known, arising from its connection with the facts that are known, and founded upon a knowledge of human nature and the motives which are known to influence human conduct. Jackson v. Warford, 7 Wend. 62. Presumptive evidence. Evidence which inclines but does not control belief; probable but not conclusive proof; evidence which, although believed, is not necessarily conclusive as to the fact in issue, but from which, according to the ordinary course of human affairs, the existence of that fact might be presumed. made in a bill in chancery for the purpose of negativing an anticipated defence. Hunt Eq. Pt. I. eh. 1. Pretended or pretensed right or title. A right or title to land set up by one who is out of possession against the person in possession. Cowel. The Stat. 32 Hen. VIII. ch. 9, forbids the sale of a pretended right or title to land, unless the vendor has received the profits for one whole year before the grant, or has been in actual possession of the land, or of the reversion or remainder, on pain that both purchaser and vendor shall each forfeit the value of such land to the king and the prosecutor. 4 Bl. Com. 136; 4 Steph. Com. 237. Similar statutes prevail in most of the states.