CONFUSION

This term, as used in the civil law and in compound terms derived from that source, means a blending or intermingling, and is equivalent to the term “merger” as used at common law. Palmer v. Burnside, 1 Woods, 182, Fed. Cas. No. 10,685. Confusion of boundaries. The title of that branch of equity jurisdiction which relates to the discovery and settlement of conflicting, disputed, or uncertain boundaries. Confusion of debts. A mode of extinguishing a debt, by the concurrence in the same person of two qualities which mutually destroy one another. This may occur in several ways, as where the creditor becomes the heir of the debtor, or the debtor the heir of the creditor, or either accedes to the title of the other by any other mode of transfer. Woods v. Ridley, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 198. Confusion of ax>ods. The inseparable intermixture of property belonging to different owners; properly confined to the pouring together of fluids, but used in a wider sense to designate any indistinguishable compound of elements belonging to different owners. The term “confusion” is applicable to a mixing of chattels of one and the,same general description, differing thus from “accession,” which is where various materials are united in one product. Confusion of goods arises wherever the goods of two or more persons are so blended as to have become undistinguishable. 1 Schouler, Pers. Prop. 41. Treat V. Barber, 7 Conn. 280; Robinson v. Holt, 39 N. H. 563, 75 Am. Dec. 233; Belcher v. Commission Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 60, 62 S. W. 924. Confusion of rights. A union of the qualities of debtor and creditor in the same person. The effect of such a union Is, generally, to extinguish the debt 1 Salk. 306;Cro. Car. 551. Confusion of titles. A civil law expression, synonymous with “merger,” as used in the common law, applying where two titles to the same property unite in the same person. Palmer v. Burnside, 1 Woods, 179, Fed. Cas. No. 10,685.