|n.||1.||That which exactly resembles or corresponds to something else; another, correspondent to the first; hence, a copy; a transcript; a counterpart.|
|2.||(Law) An original instrument repeated; a document which is the same as another in all essential particulars, and differing from a mere copy in having all the validity of an original.|
|v. t.||1.||To double; to fold; to render double.|
|2.||To make a duplicate of (something); to make a copy or transcript of.|
|3.||(Biol.) To divide into two by natural growth or spontaneous action; |
|Noun||1.||duplicate - something additional of the same kind; "he always carried extras in case of an emergency"|
|2.||duplicate - a copy that corresponds to an original exactly; "he made a duplicate for the files"|
|Verb||1.||duplicate - make or do or perform again; "He could never replicate his brilliant performance of the magic trick"|
|2.||duplicate - duplicate or match; "The polished surface twinned his face and chest in reverse"|
|3.||duplicate - make a duplicate or duplicates of; "Could you please duplicate this letter for me?"|
|4.||duplicate - increase twofold; "The population doubled within 50 years"|
|Adj.||1.||duplicate - identically copied from an original; "a duplicate key"|
|2.||duplicate - being two identical|
DUPLICATE. The double of anything.
2. It is usually applied to agreements, letters, receipts, and the like, when two originals are made of either of them. Each copy has the same effect. The term duplicate means a document, which is essentially the same as some other instrument. 7 Mann. & Gr. 93. In the English law, it also signifies the certificate of discharge given to an insolvent debtor, who takes the benefit of the act for the relief of insolvent debtors.
3. A duplicate writing has but one effect. Each duplicate is complete evidence of the intention of the parties. When a duplicate is destroyed, for example, in the case of a will, it is presumed. both are intended to be destroyed; but this presumption possesses greater or less force) owing to circumstances. When only one of the duplicates is in the possession of the testator, the destruction of that is a strong presumption of an intent to revoke both; but if he possessed both, and destroys but one, it is weaker; when he alters one, and afterwards destroys it , retaining the other entire, it has been held that the intention was to revoke both. 1 P. Wms. 346; 13 Ves. 310 but that seems to be doubted. 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 548.