Of Public Lands. Title from the state, un der a patent, is not affected by the doctrine of abandonment, unless, in consequence, title is acquired by adverse possession ; Kreamer v. Voneida, 213 Pa. 74, 62 Atl. 518. The ti tle once passed is never revested by aban donment ; id., 24 Pa. Super. 347.
It has been held that the use of property for public purposes may be abandoned for so long a time as to prevent the assertion of a private proprietary interest as against an improving possessor ; Collett v. Board of Com'rs, 119 Ind. 27, 21 N. E. 329, 4 L. R. A. 321. Failure to pay interest on school lands for 15 years with no assertion of ownership will prevent assertion of title as against sub sequent purchaser from the state who has been in possession of property for 10 years; Richardson v. Doty, 25 Neb. 420, 41 N. W. 282.
Of Rights. The relinquishment of a right. It implies some act of relinquishment done by the owner without regard to any future possession by himself, or by any other per son, but with an intention to abandon ; 14 M. & W. 789; Dyer v. Sanford, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 395, 43 Am. Dec. 399; Dawson v. Daniel, 2 Flip. 309, Fed. Cas. No. 3,669. Mere non-user does not necessarily or usu ally constitute an abandonment; Emerson v. Wiley, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 310; Parkins v. Dunham, 3 Strobh. (S. C.) 224; Elliott v. Rhett, 5 Rich. (S. C.) 405, 57 Am. Dec. 750; Jewett v. Jewett, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 150; see Tud. Lead. Cas. 130; 2 Washb. R. P. 83. There must he actual relinquishment and in tention to abandon; Log-Owners' Booming Co. v. Hubbell, 135 Mich. 65, 97 N. W. 157, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 573; Fugate v. Pierce, 49 Mo. 441; Eisele v. Oddie, 128 Fed. 941; Fos ter v. Hobson, 131 Ia. 58, 107 N. W. 1101; Carroll County Academy v. Academy Co., 104 Ky. 621, 47 S. W. 617 ; Watts v. Spencer, 51 Or. 262, 94 Pac. 39. Intention may be shown by inferential proof ; Enno-Sander Mineral Water Co. v. Fishman, 127 Mo. App. 207, 104 S. W. 1156; United Shoe Mach. Co. v. Mach. Co., 197 Mass. 206, 83 N. E. 412. It cannot be inferred from alone ; Doty v. Gillett, 43 Mich. 203, 5 N. W. 89. Nor does it result from failure to take pos session of land for a period less than would give title by adverse possession ; Kreamer v. Voneida, 24 Pa. Super. 347 ; from failure to pay taxes ; id.; or from mere temporary ab sence; Hurt v. Hollingsworth, 100 U. S. 104, 25 L. Ed. 569. But failure to pay taxes or exercise rights of ownership for over 20 years, coupled with possession of and improvement by another under color of title is evidence of abandonment; Timber v. Desparois, 18 S. D. 587, 101 N. W. 879; or coupled with other acts showing intention not to repos sess himself ; Alamosa Creek Canal Co. v. Nelson, 42 Cob. 140, 93 Pac. 1112. For old er cases see 5 L. R. A. 259, note.
Abandonment is properly confined to in corporeal hereditaments, as legal rights once vested must be divested according to law, though equitable rights may be abandoned; Great Falls Co. v. Worster, 15 N. H. 412 ;
see Cringan v. Nicolson's E'en, 1 Hen. & M. (Va.) 429; and an abandonment combined with sufficiently long possession by another party destroys the right of the original own er; Gregg v. Blackmore, 10 Watts (Pa.) 192; Barker v. Salmon, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 32; In habitants of School Dist. No. 4 v. Benson, 31 Me. 381, 52 Am. Dec. 618. Fee simple title to real estate cannot be lost by aban donment ; Barrett v. Coal Co., 70 Kan. 649, 70 Pac. 150; nor transferred by it ; Sharkey v. Candiani, 48 Or. 112, 85 Pac. 219, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 791. But under Spanish Law it may be divested, although the question of fact is for the jury ; Fine v. Public Schools, 30 Mo. 166.
There may be an abandonment of an ease ment ; Pope v. Devereux, 5 Gray (Mass.) 409 ; Shelby v. State, 10 Humphr. (Tenn.) 165; Corning v. Gould, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 531; Crain v. Fox, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 184; 3 B. & C. 332; of a mill site; French v. Mfg. Co., 23 Pick. (Mass.) 216; Farrar v. Cooper, 34 Me. 394; Taylor v. Hampton, 4 McCord (S.
C.) 96, 17 Am. Dec. 710 ; 7 Bingh. 682 ; an application for land ; Com. v. Rahm, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 378 ; of an improvement ; Fisher v. Larick, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 319; of a trust fund ; Breedlove v. Stump, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 258; of an invention or discovery ; Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Sto. 280, Fed. Cas. No. 18,107; Mel ins v. Silsbee, 4 Mas. 111, Fed. Cas. No. 9, 404; property sunk in a steamboat and un claimed ; Creevy v. Breedlove, 12 La. An. 745; a mining claim ; Davis v. Butler, 6 Cal. 510 ; Paine v. Griffiths, 86 Fed. 452, 30 C. C.
A. 182 ; a right under a land warrant ; Em ery v. Spencer, 23 Pa. 271. An easement ac quired by grant is not lost by non-user; Butterfield v. Reed, 160 Mass. 361, 35 N. E. 1128.
The burden of proof rests on the party claiming abandonment of an easement ; Hen nessy v. Murdock, 137 N. Y. 317, 33 N. E. 330.
The question of abandonment is one of fact for the jury ; 2 Washb. R. P. 82 ; Wig gins v. McCleary, 49 N. Y. 346; Banks v. Banks, 77 N. C. 186; Sample v. Robb, 16 Pa. 320.
The effect of abandonment when acted upon by another party is to divest all the owner's rights; Davis v. Butler, 6 Cal. 510; McGoon v. Ankeny, 11 Ill. 558.
It was the ancient law that the owner could, by abandoning slave or animal which was a cause of damage, relieve him self of liability, and there is a trace of the application of this principle to inanimate things; the new owner became liable, under the doctrine nowt caput sequitur. The cause of offense was the slave, animal, or thing, and only as a means of getting at that was the liability of the owner considered ; Dig. 9, 1, 1, sec. 12; Inst. 4, 8, sec. 5; Holmes, Com. L. 8.
Abandonment is to be distinguished from Dedication, Surrender, Waiver. See FrNDER.
Consult 2 Washb. R. P. 56, 82, 85, 253. See also Curtis, Pat. § 381; Walk. Patents § 87; Ewell, Fixt.; Thomp. Homest.; Dicey, Dom. 90. As to Abandonment of Patents, See PATENTS.