LAWFUL

Legal; warranted or author- ized by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to nor for- bidden by the law. The principal distinction between the terms "lawful" and "legal" is that the former contem- plates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is "lawful" implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is "legal" im- plies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense "illegal" approaches the meaning of "invalid." For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter goes no further than to denote compliance with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A fur- ther distinction is that the word "legal" is used as the synonym of "constructive," which "lawful" is not. Thus "legal fraud" is fraud implied or in- ferred by law, or made out by construction. "Law- ful fraud" would be a contradiction of terms. Again, "legal" is used as the antithesis of “equi- table." Thus, we speak of "legal assets," "legal estate," etc., but not of "lawful assets" or "law- ful estate. " But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a "lawful" writ, warrant, or process is the same as a "legal" writ, warrant, or process.

Law hateth new inventions and innovations. Wing. Max. p. 756, max. 204. Law hateth wrong. Wing. Max. p. 563, max. 146; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 62. Law of itself prejudiceth no man. Wing. Max. p. 575, max. 148; Finch, Law, b. 1, « 3, no. 63. Law respecteth matter of substance more than matter of circumstance. Wing. Max. p. 382, max. 101; Finch, Law, b. 1, ec. 3, no. 39. Law respecteth possibility of things. Wing. Max. p. 408, max. 104; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, no. 40. Law [the law] respecteth the bonds of nature. Wing. Max. p. 268, max. 78; Finch, Law, b. 1, ¢c. 3, no. 29. Legal; warranted or authorized by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to nor forbidden by the law. The principal distinction between the terms “Jawful” and “legal” is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is “lawful’? implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is “legal” implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense ‘“‘iJlegal” approaches the meaning of ‘‘invalid.” For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word “lawful” more clearly implies an ethical content than does “lega].” The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A further distinction is that the word “legal” is used as the synonym of “constructive,” which “lawful” is not. Thus “legal fraud” is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction. ‘Lawful fraud” would be a contradiction of terms. Again, “legal” is used as the antithesis of ‘“equitable.” Thus, we speak of “legal assets,” “legal estate,” etc., but not of “lawful assets.” or “lawful estate.” But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a “lawful” writ, warrant, or process is the same as a “legal” writ, warrant, or process. —Lawful age. Full age; majority; gener ally the age of twenty-one years, though sometimes eighteen as to a female. See McKim v. Handy, 4 Md. Ch. 2327.—Lawful authorities. The expression “lawful authorities,” used in our treaty with Spain, refers to persons who exercised the power of making grants by authority of the crown. Mitchel v. U. S., 9 Pet. 711, 9 L. Ed. 283.—Lawful discharge. Such a discharge in insolvency as exonerates the debtor from his debts. Mason v. Haile. 12 Wheat. 370, 6 L. Ed. 660.—Lawful entry. An entry on real estate, by one out of possession, under claim or color of right and without force or fraud. See Stouffer v. Harlan, 68 Kan. 135, 74 Pac. 613, 64 L. R. A. 320, 104 Am. St. Rep. 396.—Lawful goods. Whatever is not prohibited tq be exported by the positive ‘LAWFUL law of the country, even though it be contraband of war; for a neutral has a right to carry such goods at his own risk. Seton _v. Low, 1 Johns. Cas. (\. Y.) 1; Skidmore v. Desdoity, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 77; Jubei v. Rhinelander, 2 Johns. Cas, (N. 'Y.) 120.—Lawful heirs. See HE1Rn.—Lawful man. <A freeman, unattainted, and Sal hag of bearing oath: a legalis homo.—Lawful money. Money which is a legal tender in pes ment of debts; e. g., gold and silver coined at the mint.

9. Other kinds of consideration are, equitable, or moral considerations, which, like all "good" considerations, are sufficient to support an executed contract but not an executory one; gratuitious considerations, which are generally void because of want of injury or deprivation to the promisee; and impossible considerations, or such as cannot be performed. 10. Failure of consideration.- When a consideration does not produce 5. Logical.-An act is logically im possible when it is contrary to the nature of the transaction, as where A. gives property to B. expressly for his own benefit, on condition that he transfers it to C. Id. 159; Poll. Cont. 322, 326. See REPUGNANCY. time the contract was entered into, then the payment was originally impossible; if C. was alive at the time, but dies before the payment, it becomes impossible by matter subsequent. 7. Subsequent. -The latter class are again divisible according as the performance of the act required is rendered impos sible by the person creating the requirement, by the person for whose benefit the act was to be done, by the person required to do it, by a stranger, such as the public enemy (q. v.), by the act of God (q. v.), by a change in the law, &c. Leake Cont. 692 et seq.; Poll. Cont. 330 et seq.; Baily v. De Crespigny, L. R. 4 Q. B. 180, and the cases there cited. 28. Effect of impossibility. These divisions are important with reference to the effect of non-performance of the impossible act. Thus a contract for the performance of an act which every reasonable person must know to be impossible (as to make a flying machine and fly to the moon with it) is void, (see Leake Cont. 686; Clifford v. Watts, L. R. 5 C. P. 577; Poll. Cont. 324; 3 Savigny, 162); and an impossible consideration is no consideration. (Chit. Cont. 44.) On the other hand, if a person contracts to do an act which is only impossible from circumstances, (as to build a house in a week, all the workmen in the building trade being on strike, or to pay money when he has none,) the impossibility does not excuse his non-performance except in special cases. (Ante, § 3. Thom v. Mayor of London, L. R. 9 Ex. 163, 10 Ex. 112; 1 App. Cas. 120; Thomborow v. Whitacre, 2 Ld. Raym. 1164; Poll. Cont. 330.) Again, if the act becomes impossible by the act or default of the promisor, not only does this not excuse him, but it operates as a breach of his contract, although the time for performance may not have arrived (Poll. Cont. 345); while if it becomes impossible by the act of the person for whose benefit it was to be done, the promisor is discharged from performance. All these rules, however, are subject to the intention appearing from the whole transaction. See, also, 1 Savigny Oblig. 381 et seq., and with reference to 6. Original.---With reference to the time when the impossibility first exists, the act may be either originally impossible (ab initio), or become impossible by matter subsequent (ex post facto). Thus, legacies, &c., Wats. Eq. 1233. See CONDIif A. contracts with B. to pay money it to ΤΙΟΝ, 28 8, 10.

Conformable to law; allowed by law; legitimate; competent. Constituted or authorized by law; rightful; as, the lawful owner of lands. Lawful age, the age when the law recognizes one's right of independent action; majority; -- generally the age of twenty-one years.

A character having a lawful alignment.

Conforming to, or recognised by the laws of society. | Operating according to some law or fundamental principle. | Of a character: having an alignment which makes them tend to follow the laws and conventions of society.