MENTARY

2 definitions found across Law Mind sources

MENTARYAuthored
The Law Mind • 616 words
Definition
"Mentary" does not appear to be a recognized standalone legal term. The source material attributed to this headword in Bouvier's Law Dictionary concerns the forfeiture of licenses upon breach of condition — content that belongs under entries such as LICENSE, FORFEITURE, or CONDITION. The fragment reads as a continuation of a larger discussion, not a discrete term. It is possible that "mentary" is a truncated or corrupted form of a longer word — candidates include TESTAMENTARY, ALIMENTARY, SUPPLEMENTARY, or PARLIAMENTARY — each of which carries distinct legal meaning. It may also represent a scanning or transcription artifact from a historical dictionary source. Because the source material does not define "mentary" as a legal concept, this entry addresses the substance of the Bouvier's passage as it stands, and flags the likely parent terms a researcher should consult. ---
Common Confusion
The Bouvier's passage assigned to this headword addresses license forfeiture doctrine: specifically, (1) that any breach of a license condition by the licensee works a forfeiture, and (2) that licenses containing express forfeiture stipulations are not ipso facto forfeited upon breach but remain inoperative and pleadable until rescinded by a court of equity. This doctrine belongs under LICENSE or FORFEITURE, not under any recognized term "mentary." Researchers encountering this passage should treat it as misattributed or as a fragment of a longer headword. Do not rely on "mentary" as a retrievable legal concept in any jurisdiction. If the intended term is one of the following, consult the corresponding entry: TESTAMENTARY — relating to a will or testament; the most common "-mentary" legal term. ALIMENTARY — relating to support or maintenance obligations. SUPPLEMENTARY — relating to additions to pleadings, proceedings, or instruments. PARLIAMENTARY — relating to legislative procedure and rules of deliberative bodies. ---
Why It Matters in Research
This entry is a caution flag, not a substantive definition. Researchers using digitized or OCR-processed historical dictionaries will encounter headword corruption with some regularity. Letters drop, prefixes detach, and partial words surface as apparent entries. "Mentary" almost certainly falls into this category. The practical risk: a researcher who indexes or cites "mentary" as a legal term, or who treats the forfeiture-of-license passage as definitional of this word, will be working from a corrupted source. The underlying doctrine in the Bouvier's passage — that equity courts must act to rescind a license before forfeiture is operative, and that breach alone does not automatically void the instrument — is legitimate nineteenth-century patent and license law. But it should be located and cited under its correct headword. When working with Bouvier's and other historical dictionaries in digitized form, cross-check any unfamiliar short headword against the surrounding pages. OCR errors cluster around prefixes and suffixes, making "-ment," "-ary," and "-mentary" fragments particularly prone to false separation from their root terms. ---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary is the sole source provided. The passage does not define a term called "mentary" — it states a rule about license forfeiture, citing 1 Blatchford 165 and Robinson on Patents § 822, along with 8 Federal Reporter 223. These are real nineteenth-century sources in patent law. The doctrine they support — that equity intervention is required before an expressly stipulated forfeiture becomes operative — reflects established chancery principles of the period. The passage is coherent law; the headword is not. No other historical legal dictionary (Black's, Burrill's, Wharton's, Tomlin's) carries a headword "mentary." Its absence from those sources reinforces the conclusion that this is a fragmentary or corrupted entry in the digitized Bouvier's corpus. ---
Related Terms
TESTAMENTARY FORFEITURE LICENSE CONDITION (legal) ALIMENTARY SUPPLEMENTARY PARLIAMENTARY LAW IPSO FACTO
MENTARYmain
Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928
It has been held that any breach of the condition of a license by the licensee works a forfeiture; 1 Blatch. 165. Licenses containing express stipulations for their forfeiture are not ipso facto for- feited upon condition broken, but remain inoperative and pleadable until rescinded by a court of equity; Rob. Pat. § 822;8 Fed. Rep. 223. The question of forfeiture depends upon the ordinary principles of equity; therefore a court will not rescind a license for non-payment of money at the time fixed therein, if payment has been subsequently tendered or justice can be done by a judgment for the amount already due; Rob. Pat. § 822; 5 Bann. & A. 572. A refusal to pay royalties coupled with an abandonment of the license and a defence on other grounds, are sufficient for annul- ment; 1 Fish. 380. If the contract contain no power of revocation, the licensor can only proceed at law for any breach; 41 Fed. Rep. 475; 32 id. 544; 28 id. 814. Where an assignment, grant, or convey- ance of a patent has been acknowledged before a notary public or United States commissioner, or any secretary of legation or consular officer authorized to administer oaths under R. S. § 1750, the certificate of such acknowledgment under the hand and seal of such officer is prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument; Act of March 3, 1897, A certified copy of an assignment of a patent has been held sufficient, prima facie, to show title in the assignee; 56 Fed. Rep. 149; but see 26 id. 763; 60 id. 1016. Of joint inventors. The patent must in all cases issue to the inventor, if alive and if he has not assigned hisinterest. And if the invention is made jointly by two inven- tors, the patent must issue to them both. This is equally the case where one makes a portion of the invention at one time and another at another time. It is not necessary that exactly the same idea should have occurred to each at the same time. If an idea is suggested to one and he even goes so far as to construct a machine embodying this invention, but it is not a completed working machine and another person takes hold of it and by their joint labor a perfect machine is made, a joint patent may be properly issued to them. But if each person invented a dis- tinct part of a machine, each should obtain a patent for his invention; 11 Fed. Rep. 505.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In