its purposes, constitute the law as between accompanied with deliberation. the parties. Consensus, non concubitus, facit matrimonium. Consent, not intercourse, creates marriage. Consensus tollit errorem. Consent removes error: the effect of a mistake is obviated or waived by concurrence. Applies to an irregularity or a matter of mere form in procedure. A defect in substance, pleaded over, is still demurrable.¹ Hence, if consent is obtained by meditated imposition, circumvention, surprise, or undue influence, it is to be treated as a delusion, and not as a deliberate and free act of the mind. Upon this ground the acts of a person non compos mentis are invalid.1 Consent rule. See EJECTMENT. Consensual. 1. Formed by mere consent. In civil law, a contract of sale is consensual; not so a contract of loan. In the case of a sale, upon consent given, the parties have reciprocal actions; in the case of a loan, Also applies to voluntary payments of illegal exactions, where recovery could have been prevented.2 there is no action till the thing is delivered.2 Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who 2. In the sense of resting upon mere conis silent is regarded as consenting: silence sent, all contracts, except marriage, may be gives consent. A man who is fully aware of what is being done against his interest cannot remain passive and afterward resist the disadvantage his silence has caused.3 Nor can a person complain of the effect of words uttered in his presence, when he should have denied their truth.4 The maxim is to be construed as applying only to those cases where the circumstances are such that a party is fairly called upon to deny or to admit his liability. But if silence may be interpreted as assent where a proposition is made to one which he is bound to deny or admit, so also it may be if he is silent in the face of facts which fairly call upon him to speak. See ESTOPPEL; SILENCE. One who preserves, or has the charge of a matter or thing, as, of the peace, q. v. 1 See Rogers v. Cruger, 7 Johns. *611 (1808); Morrison v. Underwood, 5 Cush. 55 (1849); Cushing v. Worrick, of a lunatic or distracted person.5 In Connecticut and Illinois, the committee 9 Gray, 386 (1857); Wilkinson's Appeal, 65 Pa. 190 (1870). 2 Chicago & Northwestern R. Co. v. United States, 104 U. S. 687 (1881). $ See 99 U. S. 581; 20 Conn. 98; 41 N. H. 465; 9 Barb. 17; 2 Pars. Contr. 759. 41 Greenl. Ev. § 197. Day v. Caton, 119 Mass. 515-16 (1876), cases. • Plummer. v. Commonwealth, 1 Bush, 78 (1866). Clem v. State, 33 Ind. 431 (1870). • Howell v. McCrie, 36 Kan. 644 (1887), Simpson, C. 11 Story, Eq. §§ 222-23. 2 See Hare, Contracts, 85-86. 3 Clarion Bank v. Jones, 21 Wall. 337 (1874), Clifford, J. See also Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 167 (1878); 5 Cush. 305; 4 Bl. Com. 197. 4 Smith v. Western Union Tel. Co., 83 Kу. 115 (1885). Treat v. Peck, 5 Conn. *280 (1824); Hutchins v. Johnson, 12 id. 376 (1887); Nuetzel v. Nuetzel, 13 Bradw. 542 1 (1883).