a person where he is the party owing it, or primarily bound to pay, whether the time for payment has or has not arrived.
4. Payable. A bill or note is commonly said to be due when the time for payment of it has arrived.
The word "due" always imparts a fixed and settled obligation or liability, but with reference to the time for its payment there is considerable ambiguity in the use of the term, as will appear from the foregoing definitions, the precise signification being determined in each case from the context. It may mean that the debt or claim and question is now (presently or immediately) matured and enforceable, or that it matured at some time in the past and yet remains unsatisfied, or that it is fixed and certain but the day appointed for its payment has not yet arrived. but commonly and in the absence of any qualifying expressions, the word 'due" is restricted to the first of these meanings, the second being expressed by the term "overdue," and the third by the word "payable.". See Feeser v. Feeser ‘1 Md J16 o .ti. : . mes v. . mes. . s . \-in IIooi: v. Vvnlton 28 Tex. . Li ..-zett . gin}. 21: N.D§r. 2SIf‘i: St-udderAv. %1l"UgI5lEI::A 10 .'. , w. " ): arnes v. i-nol . DD- I\iiv_ 314. 61 N. Y. Supp. 811' Yociim v. Allen. Tih Ohio St. 2%, 50 v. 10. 9( Gics v. Becht- ncr. I2 Minn %4 (Gil. 1&3 Mnrsliiler V. \\‘Iird_ 52 W. Va. 74. 43 S. E. 178.
—Diie care. Just. proper, and sutlicient cnre. srr far as the circimislnnces demand it; tlis absence of negligence This term, as usually understood in cases where the gist of the ac- iion is the defendant's neglige-nce. implies not only that a party has not been ncggligcnt oi (areiess, but that he has been guilty of no violation of law in relation to the subject- matter or transaction which constitutes the cause of action. Evidence that a pnrty is guilty of a violation of law supports the issue of a ii.-int of proper care: nor can it be doubted tlnit in these and similar actions the avermcut in the declaration of the use of due care nud the denial of it in the answei; properly and distinctlv put in issue the legality of the conduct of the party as contributing to the noni- dcnt or injury which forms the izroiindwork of the action._ No specific averment of the particular unlawful act which cuiiss-d or coni'rib— "[911 to produce the result complained of sl-mild.
in such cases. be deemed necessary See Hvnn
v. Bristol. 6.} Conn. 26. 27 Atl. 300: Pnden v.
Van P-larcom. 106 Mo. Ap . 185. 74 S. W'. 1%:
Jnvner v. Railway Co.. £3 1 S 17.‘.
6 . v. 49. .
n Nirhnlsis v. Deck, 21 R. I. 404, 43 Mi Ill‘ . Ihili-and Co. v. Yorty. 158 Ill. 32], .\'. L‘. (H: Schmidt v. Sinnott. 103 Ill. 1 Tnirtcrfieiii v. Western It tlI:iss._I 532. R7 Am. Dec. ilirer, ‘J0 -Xllrn (Massl 24') law. This phrase is synnn process of lsvi." or "the law of the land." and the general definition thereof is "low in its mnil.-ir course of administration tlit'(1Ii2’ll courts of justice :" and. while not always necessarily confined to judicial proceedings. yet these words bzive such a signification, when used to dnsiz— nale the kind of an eviction, or mister, from reni estate br which a party is lllSDI).<SPFSOd, us to pl‘1‘('ll1t‘le tlioreunrler proof of a cnnstnic- rive eviction resulting from the purchase of It mirzimoii-it title when hoslllely nssprtnd by the party lioldins it. See I r v. Wbithecl:. 44 {vliin St. son. '1 N. E. hi '. In re Ilorscy, 7 Fr-rt. ii.) 404: Ihukiis v. Sliinhr~ril_ 11 "V-nd. (N. Y) 6'35: Dnizht v. \\’i'llinms. 8
. Due notice. No fixed rule ed as to what shall constitute. "due notice." "Due" is a relative tcrm, and must be applied to each case in the exorcise of the discretion of the court in View of thc
Bl.Law Dict.(2d Ed.)—26
401
DUE—BILL
particular circumstances. Lawrcnce v. l3ow- man. 1 Mc.—‘\ll. 20. 15 Fed Cas. 21: Slntt£l'.Y V. Doyle. 180;\I'.iss. 27. 01 N. E. ‘_’(i-i» \\‘ilde V. Wilde. 2 Nov. 306.—Di-ie process of law. Law in its regular course of -administration through courts of justice. 3 Story. Const 26-1, 66 ' Due proccss of law in our-li p.uticul:-.r
. means such nu exorcise of the pouers of the gmernmcnt as the settled maxlins of law permit and sanction, and under such snfe- gunrils for the protection of individual rights as those l’l1iVli:i'IS prescribe for the class of cases to which the one in question bcl iigs." Cooley. Coust. Lim. 4-11. \’Vhiit£ver dii ciiiiy mny be cxpericnced in giving to those ter' :1 definition which nill embrace every ]IDK'lii-I5 bln eXE‘i‘llUl1 of power lIiII’(t'in_‘_' private l‘l[zlItS, and oxclude such as is fnrhiilden, thcrc cun he no doubt of their meaning when applied to judicini proceedings. They then menu a coiirsc of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which l.ia\P been established in our systems of jurisprnili-nce for the enforcement and protection of private l'i}1l’ItS. To give such proceedings any validity, there must he a tri- bunal competent by its coiistitutioii—thnt is, by the law of its crentic-n—to pass upon the sub- ject-mntter of the suit; and, if tlint involves merely a dctcrminntion of the [Icrsnn'il ii: iliry E of the tlcfcndant. he must be luuiiglit within
its jurisdiction by service of prnc'~' within the stotc or his volunt.-iry unpcnraiice Pcnnoyer V. Nod’. 95 U. S. 733. ‘.34 . Lil. 50.). Due pro-
cess of law implies the right of the person affacts-d thereby to be present before the trilmnal which pronounces judgment upon the question of lift‘. libcrtv, or property. in its most com- I: prohensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to lmle thc right of controvcrting, by proof, eicry innreri-ii f-ict iiliicli heois on the question of 1'iL'1]t in the matter ilJV0lV(‘Il. If any question of fact or liability be conclu- sively presumed a" him. this is not due ‘process of law. . ,.'ler v. Railrond Co.. 58 G Ala 599. These ]')l1l‘RSES in the constitution do not mean the general body of the l.-iiv. conimon and statute, as it was at the time the constitution took effect: for thnt would seem to deny the right of the legislature to amend or rcpeni the law. They refer to certain funda- mental rights, which that system of jurispru- H dencc, of which ours is a derivative. has alwmys recn l]lZ(-‘d. Bi'(|\\n v. Leu-e Cun.i'rs. 50 Miss. 4f‘. "Due process of law." as used in the consti utio cannot mean less than a prosecution or suit I stitutcd and conducted according to the prescribed forms and solcmnities for ns- I
certnining sliilf, or dcterminiiis the title to
property. Emh V Conner, 3 N. Y 511. 517.
5'! Am. Dec. 3" Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill
(. Y.) 140. 40 Dec. 274: Ilurch v. NEW- burfi 10 N. Y. 374. ."-'37. And see. gencrallr. Davidson v. ’
Nctv Orlc-ins. 96 "L S. 104. 1) cl '
I4.
939'
14 . up.
v. Tillmn . . .3.
Mixnu. 38 Mi . -133: Kingston v. Towlc. 48 N’ H. 57. 97 Am. Dec. 575. 2
Am. Ht-p. 174: Hnllenhccl: v. Hahn. 2 Nah. 377: Stuart v. Pnlnier. 74 N. Y. 19 . 30 R:-p. 289: _Bnilcy v Pr-nple. K B. 60 N. E 9.9, {)4 L. R. A. F29. 83 Am. St. lilnnics v. Savamt. 77 Me 221. 52 . .rse.v. 175 U. 77, 44 L. 119: llnzar . .. 11] U. S. 701, 4 Lip. Cr 61. .. . L. Ed. 569: Wynclinmer r. People. 13 N. Y, 395; State v. Bcsuick. 13 R. I. 211 |_ 43 Am. Rep. 26; 41 C. C. A. 497.
In re Russet. 101 Fed. 567:
DU-BILL. A brief written acknowledgment of a debt. It is not made payable to order. like a Dl'0l.I]1SSOF_V note. See Feeserm
