Negligence, consisting in the omission of something which a party might do, and might reasonably he expected to do, towards the vindication or enforcement of his rights. The word is generally the syno-nym of “remissness,” “dilatoriness," “un-reasonable or unexcused delay,” the opposite of “vigilance,” and means a want of activity and diligence in making a claim or moving for the enforcement of a right (particularly in equity) which will afford ground for presuming against it, or for refusing re-lief, where that is discretionary with the court. See Ring v. Lawless, 190 111. 520, 60 N. E. 881; wissler v. Craig, 80 Va. 30; Morse v. Seibold, 147 111. 318. 35 N. E. 369; Babb v. Sullivan, 43 R. C. 436, 21 S. E. 277; Graff v. Portland, etc., Co., 12 Colo. App. 106, 54 Pac. 854; Coosaw Min. Co. v. Caro-lina Min. Co. (C. C.) 75 Fed. 868; Parker v. Bethel Hotel Co., 96 Tenn. 252, 34 S. W. 209. 31 L. R. A. 706: Chase v. Chase, 20 R. I. 202. 37 Atl. 804; Ilellams v. Prior, 64 S. C. 296. 42 S. E. 106: First Nat. Bank v. Nelson. 106 Ala. 535. 18 South. 154; Cole v. Ballard, 78 Va. 147; Selbng v. Abitbol, 4 Maule & S. 462
Source: Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed (1910)
