MIXTION. The putting of different goods or chattels together in such a manner that they can no longer be separated: as, putting the wines of two different persons into the same barrel, the grain of several persons in to the same bag, and the like.
The intermixture may be occasioned by the wilful act of the party, or owner of one of the articles, by the wilful act of a stran ger, by the negligence of the owner or a stranger, or by accident. See CONFUSION OF GOODS. M 0 B (Lat. mobilis, movable). A tumultu ous rout or rabble ; a crowd excited to some violent or unlawful act. The word in legal use is practically synonymous with riot, but the latter is the more correct term.
At common law a municipal corporation is not liable for damage to property by a mob ; County of Allegheny v. Gibson's Son & Co., 90 Pa. 397, 35 Am. Rep. 670 ; Dale County v. Gunter, 46 Ala. 118 ; Mayor, etc., of Balti more v. Poultney, 25 Md. 107 ; nor for the failure of its officers to repress a mob ; Camp bell's Adm'x v. City Council of Montgomery, 53 Ala. 527, 25 Am. Rep. 656 ; Hart v. Bridge port, 13 Blatchf. 282, Fed. Cas. No. 6,149. The legislature may, however, give a right of action against the corporation for dam ages caused by a mob, and provide the meas ure of damages ; Atchison v. Twine, 9 Kan. 350 ; Solomon v. City of Kingston, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 562 ; Wing Chung v. Mayor, etc., of City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal. 531; Brightman v. Inhabitants of Bristol, 65 Me. 426, 20 Am. Rep. 711, Such a right of action has been provided by statute in Pennsylvania against the county in which the damage was caused. The right to sue a city for damages caused by a mob is purely statutory and can be taken away even after judgment obtained ; Louisiana v. New Orleans, 109 U. S. 285, 3 Sup. Ct. 211, 27 L. Ed. 936.
An Illinois statute rendering municipalities liable for damages to property caused by mob violence is valid under the police power, and a classification in such act between cities and unincorporated sub-divisions of the county is not unreasonable ; City of Chicago v. Sturges, 222 U. S. 313, 32 Sup. Ct. 92, 56
L. Ed. 215, citing Darlington v. Mayor, etc., of City of New York, 31 N. Y. 164, 88 Am. Dec. 248, and Fauvia v. City of New Orleans, 20 La. Ann. 410 ; County of Allegheny v. Gib son's Son & Co., 90 Pa. 397, 35 Am. Rep. 670; referring to the liability of the "hundred" and that created under statutes from 1285 to 8 George II.
A tumultuous gathering in the streets in connection with two newly married persons was held a mob for whose acts in injuring a child the municipality was held liable to the child in Cherryvale v. Hawman, 80 Kan. 170, 101 Pac. 994, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 645, 133 Am. St. Rep. 195, 18 Ann. Cas. 149.
Recovery under a state statute against a city or county must be against the one where the property destroyed was situated and not where the mob originated ; Wells, Fargo 4 Co. v. Jersey City, 207 Fed. 871.
As all the parties in any way concerned with an unlawful killing by a mob are liable in solido, it is proper to join, as a party de fendant with the individuals who participat ed in the killing, the city in which the act was committed, on the ground of its negli gence in not preventing the killing; Comitez v. Parkerson, 50 Fed. 170 ; and independent ly of any misconduct on the part of the city or county to which the loss is attributed, a state may constitutionally compel such coun ty or city to indemnify against losses of _property from mobs and riots within their limits; Pennsylvania Co. v. City of Chicago, 81 Fed. 317. See LYNCH LAW; RIOT.
M 0 C K. To deride, to laugh at, to ridicule, to treat with scorn and contempt. State v. Warner, 34 Conn. 279.