CEPIT. Took. This is a technical word, which cannot be supplied by any other in an indictment1 for larceny2. The charge against the defendant3 must be that he took the thing stolen with a felonious design. Bac. Ab. Indictment, G 1.
CEPIT ET ABDUXIT. He took and led away. These words are applied4 to cases of trespass5 or larceny, where the defendant took a living chattel6, and led it away. It is used in contradistinction to took and carried away, cepit et asportavit.
CEPIT ET ASPORTAVIT. Took and carried away.
CEPIT IN ALIO LOCO, pleadings. He took in another place. This is a plea in replevin, by which the defendant alleges7, that he took the thing replevied in another place than that mentioned in the plaintiff's declaration. 1 Chit. Pl. 490, 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3569 2 Chit. Pl. 558; Rast. 554, 555; Clift. 636 Willes, R. 475; Tidd's App. 686.
CERT人工智能NTY, UNCERT人工智能NTY8, contracts. In matters of obligation, a thing is certain, when its essence, quality, and quantity, are described, distinctly set forth9, Dig. 12, 1, 6. It is uncertain, when the description is not that of one inpidual object, but designates only the kind. Louis. Code, art. 3522, No. 8 5 Co. 121. Certainty is the mother of repose10, and therefore the law aims at certainty. 1 Dick. 245. Act of the 27th of July, 1789, ii. 2, 1 Story's Laws, 6. His compensation for his servicer, shall not exceed two thousand dollars per annum. Gordon's Dig. art. 211.
2. If a contract be so vague in its terms, that its meaning cannot be certainly collected, and the statute11 of frauds preclude12 the admissibility of parol evidence to clear up the difficulty; 5 Barn. Cr. 588; S. C. 12 Eng. Com. L. R. 827; or parol evidence cannot supply the defect, then neither at law, nor in equity13, can effect be given to it. 1 Russ. M. 116; 1 Ch. Pr. 123.
3. It is a maxim14 of law, that, that is certain which may be made certain; certum est quod certum reddi potest Co. Litt. 43; for example, when a man sells the oil he has in his store at so much a gallon, although there is uncertainty as to the quantity of oil, yet inasmuch as it can be ascertained16, the maxim applies, and the sale is good. Vide generaly, Story, Eq. El. 240 to 256; Mitf. Pl. by Jeremy, 41; Coop. Eq. Pl. 5; Wigr. on Disc. 77.
CERT人工智能NTY, pleading. By certainty is understood a clear and distinct statement of the facts which constitute the cause of action, or ground of defence, so that they may be understood by the party who is to answer them, by the jury who are to ascertain15 the truth of the allegations, and by the court who are to give the judgment17. Cowp. 682; Co. Litt. 308; 2 Bos. Pull. 267; 13 East, R. 107; Com. Dig. Pleader, C 17; Hob. 295. Certainty has been stated by Lord Coke, Co. Litt. 303, a, to be of three sorts namely, 1. certainty to a common intent 2. to a certain intent in general; and, 3. to a certain intent in every particular. In the case of Dovaston.v. Paine Buller, J. said he remembered to have heard Mr. Justice Ashton treat these distinctions as a jargon18 of words without meaning; 2 H. Bl. 530. They have, however, long been made, and ought not altogether to be departed from.
2. - 1. Certainty to a common intent is simply a rule of construction. It occurs when words are used which will bear a natural sense, and also an artificial one, or one to be made out by argument or inference. Upon the ground of this rule the natural sense of words is adopted, without addition. 2 H. Bl. 530.
3. - 2. Certainty to, a certain intent in general, is a greater degree of certainty than the last, and means what upon a fair and reasonable construction may be called certain, without recurring19 to possible facts which do not appear; 9 Johns. R. 317; and is what is required in declarations, replications, and indictments20, in the charge or accusation21, and in returns to writs22 of mandamus. See 1 Saund. 49, n. 1; 1 Dougl. 159; 2 Johns. Cas. 339; Cowp. 682; 2 Mass. R. 363 by some of which authorities, it would seem, certainty to a common intent is sufficient in a declaration.
4. - 3. The third degree of certainty, is that which precludes23 all argument, inference, or presumption24 against the party, pleading, and is that technical accuracy which is not liable to the most subtle and scrupulous25 objections, so that it is not merely a rule of construction, but of addition; for where this certainty is necessary, the party must not only state the facts of his case in the most precise way, but add to them such as show that they are not to be controverted26, and, as it were, anticipate the case of his adversary27. Lawes on Pl. 54, 55. See 1 Chitty on Pl. 235 to 241.
