Compare Abutment. The part of a bridge which touches the land. See BRIDGE. Abuttal. The point at which tracts of land meet; the butting or bounding of lands. Abutting. Usually, although not necesIn conveyancing, an abstract or summary sarily, imports "in contact" with.5 1 Johnson's Adm. v. Johnson, 32 Ala. 640-42 (1858), cases, Walker, J. 2 Converse v. Kellogg, 7 Barb. 597 (1850); 2 N. Y. 357. 3 Hough v. City Fire Ins. Co., 29 Conn. 20 (1860), Sanford, J.; Williams v. Buffalo German Ins. Co., 17 F. R. 65 (1883), cases. 4 L. abs-trahere, to draw away or off. • United States v. Northway (President Second Nat. Bank of Jefferson, Ohio), 120 U. S. 327, 334-36 (1887), Matthews, J. • [Dickinson v. Railroad Co., 7 W. Va. 413 (1874). • Wilhite v. Barr, 67 Μο. 286 (1878). Properties abut upon a street; and their owners are abutting owners. See further STREET. Touching or contiguous, as distinguished from lying near or adjacent; in contact with.8 In popular use seems to have no fixed meaning. Frequently expresses nearness. 9 What is "adjacent" may be separated by the intervention of a third object. What is "adjoining" must judgment in a case. Adjudicated. Judicially determined: as, an adjudicated - case, bankrupt. Adjudication. Determination by judicial authority. Former adjudication. Judicial determination of a matter previously in litigation. When the judgment, rendered in the former trial between the same parties, is used as a technical estoppel, or is relied upon by way of evidence as conclusive per se, it must appear, by the record of the prior suit, that the particular controversy sought to be concluded was necessarily tried and determined - that touch in some part. What is "contiguous," strictly ❘ is, if the record of the former trial shows that the verspeaking, should touch along one side. Towns contiguous at their corners are adjoining.10 The whole yard of a house of correction, though divided by a street, from which it is fenced off, is adjoining or appurtenant to the house. 11 Compare ABUT; ADJACENT; APPERTAIN. Watson v. Sutherland, 5 Wall. 79 (1866). * Electro-Magnetic Mining, &c. Co. v. Van Auken, 9 Col. 207 (1886); Gray v. Truby, 6 id. 278 (1882); Gen. Laws Col. 630, § 7. 3 L. adjacere, to lie near. Municipality No. Two, 7 La. An. 79 (1852), Eustis, C. J. See Continental Improv. Co. v. Phelps, 47 Mich. 299 (1882). United States v. Denver, &c. R. Co. 31 F. R. 886, 889 (1887), Hallett, J. • United States v. Chaplin, 31 F. R. 890, 896 (1887), Deady, J. F. adjoinder: L. ad-jungere, to join to. • Re Ward, 52 N. Y. 397 (1873); Miller v. Mann, 55 Vt. 479 (1882); Akers v. United R. Co., 43 N. J. L. 110 (1881). • Peverelly v. People, 3 Park. Cr. R. 69, 72 (1855); Crabbe, Syn. 10 Holmes v. Carley, 31 Ν. Υ. 289, 293 (1865). 11 Commonwealth v. Curley, 101 Mass. 25 (1869). dict could not have been rendered without deciding the particular matter, it will be considered as having settled that matter as between the parties; and where the record does not show that the matter was necessarily and directly found by the jury, evidence aliunde consistent with the record may be received to prove the fact; but, even where it appears extrinsically that the matter was properly within the issue controverted in the former suit, if it be not shown that the verdict and judgment necessarily involved its determination, it will not be concluded.7 The former adjudication is a finality, concluding 1F. adjorner, to put off to another day. 2 La Farge v. Van Wagenen, 14 How. Pr. 58 (1857). • Wilson v. Lott, 5 Fla. 303 (1853). Van Dyke v. State, 22 Ala. 60 (1853); 6 Wheat. 109. • Trammell v. Bradley, 37 Ark. 379 (1881); 1 Bl. Com. 187. State v. Price, 11 N. J. L. 218 (1830); Blaufus v. People, 69 N. Y. 111 (1877). * Packet Company v. Sickles, 5 Wall. 592 (1866), cases, Nelson, J.; Aurora City v. West, 7 id. 102-3 (1868), cases; Goodenow v. Litchfield, 59 Iowa, 231 (1882); ib. 549.