addition or supplement to a will, and not to constitute a revocation thereof, except in the precise degree in which it is inconsistent therewith, unless there be words of revocation. Pendergast v. Tibbetts, 41 N. E. 294, 295, 164 Mass. 270. A "eodicil," within the meaning of the statute prohibiting witnesses to any will or codicil from taking, etc., cannot be limited to codicils devising real property only, but includes all codicils. Lees v. Summersgill, 17 Ves. 508, 511. A codicil is at once amalgamated in the will and becomes a part of it. Austin v. Oakes, 1 N. Y. Supp. 307, 310, 48 Hun, 492. CO-EMPLOYE. See, also, "Fellow Servant." The essential element of common employment is a common employer and payment from a common fund. The weight of authority is to the effect that all who work for a common master, or who are subject to a common control, or derive their compensation from a common source and are engaged in the same general employment, working to accomplish the same general end, though it may be in different departments or grades of it, are co-employés. Snyder v. Viola Mining & Smelting Co., 26 Pac. 127, 129, 3 Idaho, 28. Co-employés are persons engaged in the same general service of the same master; that is, engaged at work which may reasonably be regarded as the same; but if they are in different departments of the work they cannot be regarded as co-employés, though the work of all the departments may be said to be in a general sense conducive to the finishing and completion of the entire business. Thus, train dispatchers and trainmasters cannot be said to be co-employés of locomotive firemen. Crew v. St. Louis, K. & N. W. Ry. Co. (U. S.) 20 Fed. 87. Co-employés are persons or servants employed by the same master, assisting each other in the same line of work. There are two classes of cases in which the employés of the same master are not co-employés. The first class is where the negligent employé is one who has the general management of and control over some portion or line of the master's business, and has control over the injured employé, and the employés engaged in that portion or line of business. The other class of cases is where two or more sets of employés are engaged in different lines of employment, as where one set of railroad employés has charge of a railroad train and its operation, while the other set keep the road in proper condition and repair. At common law, whenever a master delegates to any officer, servant, or employé, high or low, the performance of any of the duties of the master, such as the duty to provide the servant with a reasonably safe place in which to work, with reasonably safe machinery, tools, and implements, and reasonably safe materials to work with, and with suitable and competent fellow servants, then such officer, servant, and becomes what is known in the law as a or agent stands in the place of the master, vice principal," for whose acts the master is liable to the same extent as though the master had performed the acts or was guilty of negligence. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Weaver, 11 Pac. 408, 416, 35 Kan. 412, 57 Am. Rep. 176. COERCE-COERCION. See, also, "Duress." The word "coerce" means to restrain by force, especially by law or authority; to repress. The word "coerce" had at first only the negative sense of checking or restraining by force, as to coerce a bad man by punishments, or a prisoner with fetters; but it has now gained a positive sense, namely, that of driving a person into the performance of some act which is required of him by another, as to coerce a man to sign a contract, etc. In the latter sense, which is now a prevailing one, "coerce" differs but little from the word "compel," yet there is a distinction between them, "coercion" being threats or intimidation, physical force being usually accomplished by indirect means, as more rarely employed in coercing. State v. Darlington, 53 N. E. 925, 926, 153 Ind. 1; Chappell v. Trent, 19 S. E. 314, 342, 90 Va. 849. To constitute coercion or duress which will be regarded as sufficient to make a payment involuntary, there must be some actual or threatened exercise of power, possessed or believed to be possessed by the party exacting or receiving the payment, over the person and property of another, from which the latter has no other means of immediate relief than by making the payment. Radich v. Hutchins, 95 U. S. 210, 213, 24 L. Ed. 409; Buford v. Lonergan, 22 Pac. 164, 166, 6 Utah, 301; Union Ins. Co. v. City of Alleghany, 101 Pa. 250, 252; Shuch v. Interstate Building & Loan Ass'n, 41 S. E. 28, 31, 63 S. C. 134; Garrison v. Tillinghast, 18 Cal. 404, 407. Money paid under protest does not make the payment a compulsory one, even though the party be under no legal obligation to pay. Union Ins. Co. v. City of Alleghany, 101 Pa. 250, 252. "Compulsion" or "coercion." within the rule that a payment of money not owing was voluntary and cannot be recovered, unless its payment was procured by compulsion or coercion, is to be understood as importing some actual or threatened exercise of power possessed or supposed to be possessed by the party receiving the payment over the person at one time as another, and save the expense or property of the party making it, through of delay. Peyser v. City of New York, 70 N. which the latter has no other means of immediate relief than by advancing the money. Brumagin v. Tillinglast, 18 Cal. 265, 272, 79 Am. Dec. 176; Garrison v. Tillinghast, 18 Cal. 404, 407. Y. 497, 501, 26 Am. Rep. 624 (quoted in Cowell v. Gregory, 40 S. E. 849, 130 N. C. 80, and Chapman v. Sutton, 32 N. W. 683, 685, 68 Wis. 557); Harrington v. City of New York, 81 N. Y. Supp. 667, 670, 40 Misc. Rep. 165 (citing Peyser v. City of New York, 70 N. Y. 497, 501, 26 Am. Rep. 624). In Peyser v. City of New York, 70 N. Y. 497, 26 Am. Rep. 624, Folger, J., speaking for the court, said: "I have spoken of coercion in fact and coercion by law; by the first I COERULINE. mean that duress of person or goods where present liberty of person or immediate pos- "Coeruline" is a dye made by boiling session of goods is so needful and desirable gallein in sulphuric acid, and produces green as that an action or proceeding at law will shades. It is used for dying wool, cotton, not at all answer the pressing purpose. and silks, as woods were formerly used, and Hence an instruction that if plaintiffs, in is imported in petroleum barrels, in the form order to obtain possession of property men- of paste suspended in water, and containing tioned in the contract, were compelled when as much as 20 per cent. of the dyeing propmaking the final payment, to pay for any erty. Pickhardt v. United States (U. S.) 67 property to which they were entitled but Fed. 111, 112, 14 C. C. A. 341. which was not delivered to them, such payment was in law a payment under duress and might be recovered, was correct." Buford v. Lonergan, 22 Pac. 164, 166, 6 Utah, 301. Of jury. An attempt to influence the jury by referring to the time they are to be kept together or the inconvenience to which they are to be subjected in case they are so pertinacious as to adhere to their individual opinions, or an attempt to force a verdict by threats or intimidations, amounts to coercion sufficient as a ground for setting aside the verdict. People v. Sheldon, 50 N. E. 840, 843, 156 N. Y. 268, 41 L. R. A. 644, 66 Am. St. Rep. 564. Of wife. Coercion means "compulsion, force, and may be either actual, where physical force is used to compel a person to do an act against his will, or where the relation of the parties is such that one is under subjection to the other, and is thereby constrained to do what his free will would refuse. The common law presumes, for instance, that when husband and wife are together they have virtually but one will between them, which is the will of the husband, and consequently, if she commits an offense in his presence, it holds him prima facie responsible for it." State v. Boyle, 13 R. I. 537, 538. COERCION BY LAW. COFFEEHOUSE. A keeper of a coffeehouse merely furnishes tea and coffee, and a person who furnishes beds and provisions to such persons as apply therefor is an innkeeper. Thompson v. Lacy, 3 Barn. & Ald. 283. A coffeehouse is not an inn within the meaning of a policy of insurance against fire enumerating the trade of an innkeeper as doubly hazardous. New York Equitable Ins. Co. v. Langdon (N. Y.) 6 Wend. 623, 627; Doe ex dem. Pitt v. Laming, 4 Camp. 73, 77. "Coffeehouse" is defined by Worcester to be a house of entertainment where coffee is sold. It is sometimes used to denote a hotel or tavern, but a license to keep a coffeehouse, whatever that term may mean, does not give a privilege to sell intoxicating liquors. Commonwealth v. Woods, 4 Ky. Law Rep. 262, 27 Albany Law J. 64. COFFEE ROASTER. In a case in which it was held that one who merely roasts coffee was not a manufacturer of coffee within the meaning of a statute exempting such manufacturer from certain taxes, there was evidence that a "coffee roaster" was simply a person who takes a sack of coffee and puts it in a roaster and turns the coffee out after it is roasted. City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Coffee Co., 14 South. 502, 503, 46 La. Ann. 86. "Cognizance," as used in St. 1844, c. 44, "Coercion by law" is where a court, having jurisdiction of the persons and the sub- COGNIZANCE. ject-matter, has rendered a judgment which is collectible in due course. There the party cast in judgment may not resist the execution § 4, providing that the Supreme Judicial of it. His only remedy is to obtain a reversal, if he may, for error in it. As he cannot resist the execution of it when execution is attempted, he may as well pay the amount Court shall have full cognizance and jurisdiction over any crime punishable by death, "is a word of the greatest import, embracing all power, authority, and jurisdiction." Web ster v. Commonwealth, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) | one lives and dwells, there does the other 386, 400. live and dwell always with him. The Scotch ter than our own-'the habit and repute of expression conveys the true idea, perhaps bet(25 P. F. Smith) 207, 211. marriage.' In re Yardley's Estate, 75 Pa. As used in a statute declaring that application for relief of any person to a hospital for the insane may be made to the court hereinafter named, or any judge thereof-that is, "to any judge learned in the law of any court within this commonwealth having immediate cognizance of the crime"-the word “cognizance," as shown by the context, is used in the sense of "the right to take notice of and determine a cause." That right exists only where the crime was committed, or in a county where the prisoner may be legally tried. Clarion County v. Western Hospital for Insane, 3 Atl. 97, 98, 111 Pa. 339. Avowry distinguished. As recognizance. "Cohabitation" means to live together in the same house, claiming to be married, or, when used with reference to the relation of parties as husband and wife, merely to live together in the same house. Cox v. State, 23 South. 806, 117 Ala. 103, 41 L. R. A. 760, 67 Am. St. Rep. 166 (citing Bouv. Law Dict.); State v. Chandler, 33 S. W. 797, 798, 132 Mo. 155, 53 Am. St. Rep. 483; Jones v. Commonwealth, 80 Va. 18, 20; Van Dolsen v. State, 27 N. E. 440, 441, 1 Ind. App. 108. Bishop, in his work on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation, § 1669, says to "cohabit" is to dwell together, so that matrimonial and woman ostensibly as husband and wife. cohabitation is the living together of a man Turney v. State, 29 S. W. 893, 60 Ark. 259. The word "cognizance," as used in Code, § 4385, authorizing changing of venue in criminal cases, and providing that, when any prosecution has been transferred, the The word "cohabit" is said to mean to court or judge may require all material wit- dwell or live together as husband and wife. nesses in behalf of the prosecution to enter State v. Sekrit, 32 S. W. 977,978,130 Mo. into cognizance for their appearance at the 401; State v. Chandler, 33 S. W. 797, 798, court to which the prosecution is transfer- 132 Mo. 155, 53 Am. St. Rep. 483; Turney red, should be held to mean "recognizance," v. State, 29 S. W. 893, 60 Ark. 259. Such is which is defined to be an obligation of record its meaning as used in Code 1891, c. 149, § entered into before some court of record or 7, providing punishment for persons who magistrate, duly authorized, with condition "lewdly and lasciviously live and cohabit toto do some particular act, while "cognizance" gether." State v. Miller, 24 S. E. 882, 42 W. means, in law, knowledge or notice, judicial | Va. 215. And as used in Pub. St. c. 207, § knowledge or jurisdiction, an acknowledg- 4, providing that whoever, having a former ment or confession, as an acknowledgment of a fine. Comfort v. Kittle, 46 N. W. 988, 989, 81 Iowa, 179. COGNOVIT. A plea in an action which acknowledges that the defendant did undertake and promise as the plaintiff in its declaration has alleged, and that it cannot deny that it owes and unjustly detains from the plaintiff the sum claimed by him in his declaration, and consents that judgment be entered against the defendant for a certain sum, is called a "cognovit." It is a judgment by confession. Mallory v. Kirkpatrick, 33 Atl. 205, 207, 54 N. J. Eq. 50. COHABIT-COHABITATION. See "Bigamous Cohabitation"; "Illicit Cohabitation"; "Matrimonial Cohabitation." "Cohabit" means, according to Webster, first, to dwell with another in the same place; second, to live together as husband and wife. United States v. Griego (N. M.) 72 Pac. 20, 22. "To cohabit is to live or dwell together, to have the same habitation, so that where 2 WDS. & P.-16 wife living, marries another or continues to cohabit with such second wife, is guilty of bigamy, etc. Commonwealth v. Lucas, 32 N. E. 1033, 158 Mass. 81. The word "cohabiting," as used in Code Civ. Proc. 1962, providing that the issue of a wife cohabiting with her husband is presumed to be legitimate, means the living together of man and woman ostensibly as husband and wife. In re Mills' Estate, 70 Pac. 91, 92, 137 Cal. 298, 92 Am. St. Rep. 175. "Obviously the legal sense of the term, as used in Acts 1877-78, p. 302, c. 7, § 7, making it criminal for persons not married to cohabit together, is to live together in the same house as married persons living together or in the manner of husband and wife." Jones v. Commonwealth, 80 Va. 18, 20. To warrant a conviction under Rev. St. 1889, § 3798, punishing a man and woman who lasciviously abide and "cohabit" with each other, the evidence must show that they live together as man and wife. State v. Chandler, 33 S. W. 797, 798, 132 Mo. 155, 53 Am. St. Rep. 483. The word "cohabit," in Cr. Code, § 208, making it unlawful for any unmarried man to cohabit with a married woman in a state of adultery, means dwelling together as husband or wife, or in sexual intercourse. Swee nie v. State, 80 N. W. 815, 816, 59 Neb. 269. Cohabitation does not mean merely liv ing together, but is used in the law as relating to the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife. A presumption of marriage may arise from matrimonial cohabitation, where the parties not only live together as husband and wife, but hold themselves out to the world as sustaining that honorable relation to each other. Brinckle v. Brinckle (Pa.) 12 Phila. 232, 234. "Matrimonial cohabitation must certainly comprehend a living together as husband and wife, embracing relative duties as such, and does not mean merely living together in the same house." Stein v. Stein, 5 Colo. 55, 56. Cohabitation means a living together in one house, a boarding or tabling together, and carries with it the idea of a fixed residence, and does not include persons who are merely traveling together through the country. Ohio v. Connoway (Ohio) Tappan, 90, 91. Cohabitation may be lawful or illicit. It is lawful if preceded by consent, by words in the present, however such consent may be proved. When cohabitation follows consent, it is evidence that the parties have mutually assumed marital rights and duties, as it is evidence that the marriage has been completed by consummation. Sharon v. Sharon, 16 Pac. 345, 360, 75 Cal. 1. As continuous and public. "Cohabitation, in its usual sense, implies publicity, since two persons cannot secretly live together." Granberry v. State, 61 Miss. 440, 444. "lasciviously," "adulterously," or some other equivalent expression. No such word or expression, however, is found in Act Cong. March 22, 1882, c. 47, 22 Stat. 31 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3633], providing that if any male which the United States has exclusive jurisperson in a territory, or other place over diction, therein cohabits with more than one woman, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, sarily meaning the same offenses as are intended to be defined by the state statutes. As defined by lexicographers, "cohabit" means to dwell with or reside together. It may mean residing in the same country, city, or neighborhood, or in the same family, or the dwelling together in lawful wedlock. This would be lawful cohabitation. Or it may mean the dwelling of a man and woman together ostensibly and apparently in wedlock, when in fact or in law no marriage exists; and without proof of adultery or fornication this would be merely unlawful cohabitation. Or it may mean the living together of a man and woman without lawful marriage in the practice of fornication or adultery, which would be lascivious, lewd, or adulterous cohabitation. "Cohabitation," as used in a matrimonial sense, means to dwell together as husband and wife. United States v. Musser, 7 Pac. 389, 4 Utah, 153. and therefore cannot be construed as neces Act Cong. March 22, 1882, c. 47, 22 Stat. 31 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3633], declaring that if a male person cohabits with more than one woman he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, etc., should be given a broad meaning. It was the practice of unlawful cohabitation, or living together with more than one woman, that was aimed at by the act-a cohabitation classed with polygamy, and having its outward semblance. It is not, on the one hand, meretricious unmarital intercourse with more than one woman; nor, To "cohabit," according to the sense in on the other hand, does the statute pry into which the word is used in a penal statute, the intimacies of the marriage relation. But means dwelling together as husband and it seeks not only to punish bigamy and powife, or in sexual intercourse, and comprises lygamy, when direct proof of the existence of those relations can be had, but to prevent a a continued period of time. Hence the offense is not the single act of adultery; it is man from flaunting in the face of the world cohabiting in a state of adultery; and it the ostentation and opportunities of a bigmay be a week, a month, a year, or longer, amous household, with all the outward apbut still it is one offense only. "The defend-pearances of the continuance of the same reant is charged with the crime from August 10, 1874, until July 15, 1875. According to the import of the words used in the statute, this is a continued offense, and, if it should be proved that he wantonly cohabited with the woman in a state of adultery during any portion of this time, such proof would be sufficient to establish the crime and fix the guilt of the party." State v. Way, 5 Neb. 283, 290. lations which existed before the act was passed, and without reference to what might occur in the privacy of those relations. United States v. Snow, 9 Pac. 501, 505, 4 Utah, 280; United States v. Clark, 21 Pac. 463, 464, 6 Utah, 120. "Cohabit," as used in the act of Congress making it a misdemeanor for a man to cohabit with more than one woman, means to dwell or live together as husband and wife. United States v. Langford, 21 Pac. 409, 2 Idaho (Hasb.) 561; United States v. Kuntze, The term "cohabit," as found in the crim- 21 Pac. 407, 2 Idaho (Hasb.) 480; Ex parte Inal codes of many of the states, is coupled Nielson, 9 Sup. Ct. 672, 675, 131 U. S. 176, with and qualified by the adverbs "lewdly," | 33 L. Ed. 118. In relation to polygamous marriages. Act March 22, 1882, c. 47, 22 Stat. 31 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3633], providing that if any male person hereafter cohabits with more than one woman he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, etc., means "to hold out to the world two women as a man's wives by his language or conduct, or both, and he is guilty of cohabitation if he lives in the house with them and eats at the table of each a portion of his time, although he may not occupy the same bed or sleep in the same room with either of them, or actually have sexual intercourse with either." Cannon v. United States, 6 Sup. Ct. 278, 116 U. S. 55, 29 L. Ed. 561; United States v. Cannon, 7 Pac. 369, 375, 4 Utah, 122. Extreme case, see United States v. Harris, 17 Pac. 75, 76, 5 Utah, 436, holding that if the legal wife live in the same vicinity with the husband, bearing his name, in a household maintained in part by him, that is "cohabitation." Sexual intercourse implied. another in a state of adultery or fornication shall be fined," etc., is used in the sense of living together, but does not import that the parties are guilty of adultery or fornication. State v. Chandler, 96 Ind. 591, 593. Merely visiting. "Cohabit,” as used in St. 1784, c. 40, § 6, providing that if any man and woman, either or both of them being then married, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, means a dwelling or living together, and not a transient, single, and unlawful interview. Commonwealth v. Calef, 10 Mass. 153. "Cohabit," as used in a statute relating to the offense of unmarried persons cohabiting together, means that the parties dwell together as if the conjugal relation existed between them-"a dwelling or living together, not a transient or single unlawful interview." Luster v. State, 2 South. 690, 691, 23 Fla. 339. To cohabit is to live or dwell together, so that, where one lives and dwells, there does the other live and dwell with him. A To "cohabit" means to dwell together, inhabit or reside in company, or in the same place or country. Specifically, "to dwell or live together as husband and wife," often with reference to persons not legally mar-common-law marriage is not shown by irried, and usually, but not always, implying regular cohabitation and partial reputation. sexual intercourse. Cox v. State, 23 South. Taylor v. Taylor, 50 Pac. 1049, 10 Colo. App. 806, 117 Ala. 103, 41 L. R. A. 760, 67 Am. St. Rep. 166 (quoting Cent. Dict.). Cohabitation implies sexual intercourse, and will be inferred from the fact of the living together of husband and wife. Burns v. Burns, 60 Ind. 259, 260. Cohabitation does not mean simply the gratification of sexual passion, but to live or dwell together, to have the same habitation, so that, where one lives and dwells, there does the other live and dwell also. People v. Lehmann, 38 Pac. 422, 423, 104 Cal. 631 (citing Kilburn v. Kilburn, 89 Cal. 46, 50, 26 Pac. 636, 23 Am. St. Rep. 447; Sharon v. Sharon, 79 Cal. 633, 670, 22 Pac. 26, 131; People v. Beevers, 99 Cal. 286, 33 Pac. 844). "Cohabit does not mean mere sexual indulgence, but it means a dwelling together as husband and wife." Olson v. Peterson, 50 N. W. 155, 156, 33 Neb. 358; Taylor v. Taylor, 50 Pac. 1049, 10 Colo. App. 303. As used in Pub. St. R. I. c. 244, § 1, providing that every person who shall be convicted of cohabiting with another as husband and wife, having at the time a former husband or wife living, shall be punished, etc., the words "cohabit with" must mean to continue to live or dwell together as husband and wife ordinarily do, but according to the weight of authority the words do not necessarily imply actual sexual intercourse. In re Watson, 33 Atl. 873, 874, 19 R. I. 342. The word "cohabits," in the Indiana statute declaring that "whosoever cohabits with 303. The "cohabitation" of a man and woman as husband and wife means dwelling together, and not a habit of visiting each other, however frequent. It is the living together in the usual manner resulting from marriage. Robinson v. Robinson, 58 N. E. 906, 908, 188 Ill. 371. "The primary meaning of the word 'cohabit' is to dwell with some one, not merely It includes more than to visit or see them. that. Such, too, is the meaning as determin ed by its derivation, being compounded of con,' with, and 'habitare,' to dwell. The law presumes the husband to cohabit with his wife, even after a voluntary separation has taken place between them." Calef v. Calef, 54 Me. 365, 366, 92 Am. Dec. 549. COHABIT AS HUSBAND AND WIFE. "Cohabiting together as husband and wife" means living together publicly in the face of society as if the conjugal relation existed; living in the same house in like manner as marks the intercourse between husband and wife. Bush v. State, 37 Ark. 215, 218. "Cohabitation as husband and wife," within a statute prohibiting persons not married from cohabiting together as husband and wife, means the living together in the same house and in a relation to each other as if they were married, and a deporting of them |