ASSEMBLY. The meeting of a number of persons in the same place. An assembly of persons would seem to mean three or more. 40 S. J. 481.
Political assemblies are those required by the constitution and laws: for example, the general assembly, which includes the senate and house of representatives. The meeting of the electors of the president and vice president of the United States may also be called an assembly.
Popular assemblies are those where the people meet to deliberate upon their rights ; these are guaranteed by the constitution. U. S. Const. Amend. art. 1.
Unlawful assembly is the meeting of three or more persons to do an unlawful act, al though they may not carry their purpose into execution. Cl. Cr. Law. 341.
It differs from a riot or rout, because in each of the latter cases there is some act done besides the simple meeting. See State v. Btalcup, 23 N. C. 30, 35 Am. Dec. 732 ; 9 C. & P. 91, 431; 1 Bish. Or. L. § 535; 2 fa, 2 1256; MEETING.
Approval of something done_ Anundertaking to do something in compli ance with a request.
In strictness, assent is to be distinguished from consent, which denotes a willingness that something about to tie done, be done ; acceptance, compliance with, or, receipt of, something offered; ratification, rendering valid something done without authority ; and approval, an expression of satisfaction with some act done for the benefit of another beside the party approving. But in practice the term is often used in the sense of acceptance and approval. Thus, an offer is said to he assented to, although properly an offer and acceptance complete an agree ment. It is apprehended that'this confusion has arisen from the fact that a request, assent, and con currence of the party requesting complete a con tract as fully as an offer and acceptance. Thus, it is said there must be a request on one side, and as sent on the other, in every contract; 5 Bingh. x. c. 75; and this assent becomes a promise enforceable by the party requesting, when he has done any thing to entitle him to the right. Assent thus be comes in reality (so far as it is assent merely, and. not acceptance) an offer made in response to a re quest. Assent and approval, as applied to acts of
parliament and of congress, have become con founded from the fact that the bills of parliament were originally requests from parliament to the king. See 1 Bla. Com. 183.
Express assent is that which is openly de clared. Implied assent is that which is pre sumed by law.
Unless express dissent is shown, accept ance of what it is for a person's - benefit to take, is presumed, as in the case of a con *veyanee of land ; 3 B. & Ald. 31; Harrison v. Trustees, 12 Mass. 461; Pearse v. Owens, 3 N. C. 234; Treadwell v. Bulkley, 4 Day (Conn.) 395, 4 Am. Dec. 225; Jackson v. Bodle, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 184; Church v. Gil man, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 656, 30 Am. Dec. 82: the assent (or acceptance) of the grantee to the delivery of a deed by a person other than the grantor, vests the title in him from the time of the delivery by the grantor to that third person ; O'Kelly v. 8 Mete. (Mass.) 436; Hulick v. Scoril, 4 Gilm. (III.) 176; Buff= v. Green, 5 N. EL 71, 20 Am. Dec. 562 ; Belden v. Carter, 4 Day (Conn.) 66, 4 Am. Dec. 185; Jackson v. Bodle, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 187; Wesson v. Stephens, 37 N. C. 557; 5 B. & C. 671; a devise which draws after it no charge or risk of loss, is Presumed to have been accepted by the dev isee ; Brown v. Wood, 17 Mass. 73; Hannah v. Swamer, 8 Watts (Pa.) 9, 34 Am. Dec. 442.
Assent must be to the same thing done or offered in the same sense ; Matlock v. Thomp son, 18 Ala. 605 ; Keller v. Ybarru, 3. Cal. 147; Eliason v. Henshaw, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 225, 4 It Ed. 556; 5. M. & W. 575 ; it must comprehend the whole of the proposition, must be exactly equal to its extent and pro visions, and must not qualify them by any new matter ; 5 M. & W. 535; Slay maker v. Irwin, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 369; Vassar v. Camp, 11 N. Y. 441.
In. general, when an assignment is made to one for the benefit of creditors, the assent of the assignee will be presumed; Skipwith's Ex'r v. Cunningham, 8 Leigh (Va.) 272, 281,1 31 Am. Dec. 642. But see Crosby v. Hillyer, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 280 ; Welch v. Sackett, 12 Wis. 243. See ACCEPTANCE; ACCORD; AGREE MENT; CONTRACT.