Civil law. This term is used principally in the civil law; it is defined to be a right which a creditor has over a thing belonging to another, and which consists in the power to cause it to be sold, in order to be paid his claim out of the proceeds. There are two species of hypothecation, one called pledge, pignus, and, the other properly denominated hypothecation. Pledge is that species of hypothecation which is contracted by the delivery of the debtor to the creditor, of the thing hypothecated. Hypothecation, properly so called, is that which is contracted without delivery of the thing hypothecated. 2 Bell’s Com. 25, 5th ed. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (C.&P. 1856);
The Grapeshot, 76 U.S. 129 (1869) (The doctrine on the subject of maritime hypothecation, so far as it seems useful to consider it in this case, may be summed up, we think, in these propositions: [76 U.S. 129, 141] 1. Liens for repairs and supplies, whether implied or express, can be enforced in admiralty only upon proof made by the creditor that the repairs or supplies were necessary, or believed, upon due inquiry and credible representation, to be necessary.) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/76/129.html
De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3.776 (1815) (The Admiralty, from the highest antiquity, has exercised a very extensive criminal jurisdiction, and punished offenses by fine and imprisonment. The celebrated inquisition at Queensborough, in the reign of Edward lll, would alone be decisive. And, even at Common Law it had been adjudged, that the Admiralty might fine for contempt… Appeal, and not a Writ of Error, lies for its decrees.. Yet, it is conceded on all sides, that of maritime hypothecations of the Admiralty depends, or ought to depend, as to contracts upon the subject matter, i.e. whether maritime or not; and as to torts, upon locality.); (“The clause however of the constitution not only confers Admiralty jurisdiction, but the word “Maritime” is superadded, seemingly ex-industria to remove every latent doubt. “Cases of Maritime jurisdiction” must include all maritime contracts, torts and injuries, which are in the understanding of the Common Law, as well as of the Admiralty, . .”); (It has been further asserted, that the admiralty has jurisdiction, only when the parties have bound themselves in rem; for, if they have bound themselves personally, its jurisdiction is said to be ousted. Per Buller, J, in Menetone v. Gibbons, 3 Term R. 267, 270. And see Ouston v. Hebden, 1 Wils. 101. This doctrine is not pretended to be founded upon the statutes of Richard. Yet it is difficult to perceive, how it can be otherwise supported; and no adjudged case rests singly upon it. Indeed, in the very case in which it was alluded to (viz, a maritime hypothecation), the usual form of the instrument includes a personal obligation or covenant. All the forms, which have fallen under my notice, are of this nature, and the customary instrument, a bond, necessarily includes a personal liability. See the forms on Abb. Shipp. Append. Nos. 1—3; Glover v. Black, 3 Burrows, 1394; Marsh. Ins. bk. 2, c. 1, p. 733, etc., and Append. No. 5; 1 Magens, Ins. 25; Molley, De Jur. Mar. bk. 2, c. 11, § 12; 2 Magens, 393; 3 C. Rob. Adm. 31. Yet it is conceded on all sides, that of maritime hypothecations the admiralty has jurisdiction.);
Hypothesis.
A supposition, assumption, or theory; a theory set up by the prosecution, on a criminal trial, or by the defense, as an explanation of the facts in evidence, and a ground for inferring guilt or innocence, as the case may be, or as indicating a probable or possible motive for the crime.
Hypothetical question.
A combination of assumed or proven facts or circumstances, stated in such form as to constitute a coherent and specific situation or state of facts, upon which the opinion of an expert is asked, by way of evidence during a trial. Cf. Fed.Evid. R. 703, 705; ORS Chapter 41;
MacPherson v. Department of Administrative Services, Risk Management Division, 340 Or 117, 130 P3d 308 (02/21/2006) (This court has explained that a ripe claim for declaratory judgment under ORS 28.020 “must involve present facts as opposed to a dispute which is based on future events of a hypothetical issue.” Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446, 449, 648 P2d 1289 (1982). http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S52875.htm
Flowers v. Carville, No. 00-17299 (9th Cir. 11/12/2002) (“[M]ere rhetorical hyperbole” is not actionable. Wellman v. Fox, 825 P.2d 208, 211 (Nev. 1992)); http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0017299p.pdf