Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

will be construed as "and.” Attorney Gen. , filed for the payment of costs on appeal, eral v. West Wisconsin Ry. Co., 36 Wis. 466, “or” if a stay of proceedings be claimed in 487.

a sum equal to twice the amount of the

McConky It is well settled that, when either the judgment, is to be read “and."

V. Superior Court of Alameda County, 56 “or" or "and" has been mistakenly used for

Cal. 83. the other, the one intended will be substi. tuted for the one mistakenly used, so as to Under Rev. St. 1879, $ 1878, providing carry out the legislative intention; hence in for applications for change of venue and Code 1892, § 293, providing that the board of for the election of a special judge "for the supervisors shall have power, in its discre trial of a particular case pending or to tion, to employ counsel by the year, or to decide defendant's application for the change employ counsel in all civil cases in which of venue," the word "or" will be construed the county is interested, the word "or" will to mean "and," and the election of the spebe read "and," in view of the course of cial judge merely to decide the defendant's legislation previous thereto. Warren Coun application for the change of venue is unty v. Booth, 32 South. 1000, 1001, 81 Miss. authorized. State v. Bulling, 100 Mo. 87, 267.

93, 12 S. W. 356. As used in Civ. Code, $ 3828, providing As used in Gen. Laws 1881, C. 148, § that a mother, or, if no mother, a father, i 2, providing that a receiver may be apmay recover for the homicide of a child, pointed when it shall appear that a debtor minor of sui juris, upon whom she or he is is insolvent “or” has been giving or is about dependent "or who contributes to his or her to give a preference to any creditor, “or" support, unless said child leave a wife, should be construed "and." Weston v. Loy. husband, or child," "or" should be con- bed, 14 N. W. 892, 893, 30 Minn 221. strued to mean "and"; hence, in order to entitle a parent to recover, it must appear

The word "or," in Act June 13, 1826, $ that he or she is dependent on the child, 4, requiring an affidavit for a capias ad reand that the latter contributes to the par- spondendum that to the best of deponent's ent's support. Smith v. Hatcher, 29 s. E. knowledge “or” belief the defendant was 162, 163, 102 Ga. 158 (citing Clay v. Central ! not an inhabitant of the commonwealth, Railroad & Banking Co., 84 Ga. 345, 10 s. etc., should be construed to signify "and," E. 967).

for the spirit of the act confines the use of

the capias to cases in which the plaintiff As used in the act relating to forcible has reason to know and fully believes that entry and detainer, authorizing a remedy for defendant is about to quit the commonan unlawful "or" forcible entry, "or" must wealth. Diehl v. Perie (Pa.) 2 Miles, 47, 49. be read “and," as it would be unreasonable to give such a construction to the word "or" Under Act April 18, 1884, § 4, providas would create a new kind of action, all ing that “this act shall not apply to railformer acts in relation to the matter hav. way, canal, or banking corporations, * ing used the language "unlawful 'and' forci- or manufacturing companies or mining comble entry," Ferrell v. Lamar, 1 Wis. 8, 15; panies carrying on business in this state," and it would include every unlawful with it was held that the word “or” was used in holding of possession from the person en- | its copulative and not in its disjunctive titled to it, whether defendant's entry was sense, in that the qualifying words "carlawful or unlawful. Winterfield v. Stauss, rying on business in this state" related to 24 Wis. 394, 406. See, also, O'Connell v. all the corporations designated in the act, Gillespie, 17 Ind. 459, 460; Burgett v. Both- and not merely to mining companies. Standwell, 86 Ind. 149, 151.

ard Underground Cable Co. v. Attorney Gen

eral, 46 N. J. Eq. (1 Dick.) 270, 277, 19 Atl. When necessary to carry out the in: 733, 735, 19 Am. St. Rep. 394. tention of the Legislature in a statute, “or” may be read as "and," and is so used in an "Or," as used in a statute, construed act authorizing a city to purchase or erect to mean "and.” Sparrow v. Davidson Colwaterworks "or” to authorize the erection lege, 77 N. C. 35, 36; State v. Bulling, 12 s. of the same, so that the grant to a corpo W. 356, 100 Mo. 93; Toomey v. Hughes (Pa.) ration of a franchise does not prevent the 25 Wkly. Notes Cas. 66, 67. city from afterwards erecting its own sys

The word "or" will be construed to tem. North Springs Water Co. v. City of

mean "and" in order to give effect to the Tacoma, 58 Pac, 773, 777, 21 Wash, 517, 47 L. R. A. 214 (citing Thomson-Houston Elec. intention of the Legislature. Price v. Fortric Co. v. City of Newton (U. 8.) 42 Fed. rest, 35 Atl. 1075, 1080, 54 N. J. Eq. 669. 723); Thomas v. City of Grand Junction, The word "or" in a statute read "and," 58 Pac. 665, 687, 13 Colo. App. 80.

because evidently a misprint. Sparrow V. The word "or," in Code Civ. Proc.;

Davidson College, 77 N. 0. 35, 36. 978, providing that an appeal from a justice "Or” may be read "and" if the sense reis not effectual unless an undertaking be quires it. Bates' Ann St Ohio 1904, $ 6794;

Bates' Ann. St. Oblo 1904, § 23; Bates' Ann. I was recoverable against a justice for marrySt. Ohio 1904, § 4947.

ing the minor daughter of a citizen of an“Or” may be read “and." Rev. St. Wyo. without the consent of her parents. Bollin

other state, not resident in Pennsylvania, 1899, $ 2724.

v. Shiner, 12 Pa. (2 Jones) 205, 206. Same-In penal statutes.

As used in Rev. St. U. S. § 3893 (U. S. The doctrine is elementary that the Comp. St. 1901, p. 2658), imposing a penalty word “and” may be interpreted as a dis- for knowingly mailing any obscene, lewd, junctive, and the word “or” as a conjunc- “or” lascivious book, “or” is construed as tive, when the sense absolutely requires it. meaning “and,” so that a publication, to be State v. Brandt, 41 Iowa, 593, 614. In Code, within the probibition, must be not only ob§ 3870, providing that “if the father and scene, but also lewd and lascivious. United mother of any child under the age of 6 States v. Moore (U. S.) 104 Fed. 78. years exposes, etc., the same,"

Under Act 1866, c. 42, providing that a etc., with intent to abandon it, etc., the word “and” may be construed to mean “or," and neglects to employ himself, and have some

person who may be able to labor, “or” who the offense charged therein may be commit- honest occupation for the support of himself ted by either parent. State V. Smith, 46

or bis family, “or" if any person sball be Iowa, 670, 673.

found spending his time in dissipation, etc., “Or,” as used in Revision, $ 243, pro- i the word "or” must be construed “and," viding that certain acts of a state officer otherwise it will follow that any person charged with the collection, safe-keeping, whatever sauntering about without employ. transfer, and disbursement of public money ment, though he might have ample means should be deemed an embezzlement of so of subsistence, would be a vagrant. State much of such money as is taken, converted, v. Custer, 65 N. C. 339, 342. invested, used, loaned, “or” unaccounted Laws 1890, c. 110, § 1, declares that any for, should be construed to mean "and.” person, association, or incorporation which State v. Brandt, 41 Iowa, 593, 606.

shall manufacture any spirituous, malt, “Or," as used in Act March 31, 1860,

vinous, fermented, or other intoxicating liq$ 135, providing that the defendant must uor, or shall import any of the same for break “or” enter in order to constitute the sale or gift, as a beverage, or shall keep common-law offense of burglary, is to be for sale, or sell, or offer for sale or gift, construed to mean "and.” Rolland v. Com

barter, or trade, any of such intoxicating monwealth, 82 Pa. 306, 326, 22 Am. Rep. Held, that the disjunctive conjunction "or,"

liquors, as a beverage, shall be punished. 758.

used in such statute, might be construed to As used in Battle's Revisal, c. 32, g 154, mean "and," and therefore an indictment providing for the punishment of any per- charging that defendant sold "and" gave son who willfully puts any obstruction, ex- was not objectionable for duplicity, since cept for the purpose of utilizing water as the pleader may allege in a single complaint a motive power, in any natural passage for that the vendor did as many of the forbidwater, whereby the natural flow of water is den things as he chose, employing the conlessened or retarded, “or” whereby the navi. junction "and,” and will be able to secure gation of such course by any raft or flat conviction at the trial by proof of any one may be impeded, “or" means "and,” so that of the alleged acts. State v. Kerr, 58 N. W. the section will read "whereby the natural 27, 28, 3 N. D. 523. flow of the water is retarded, 'and' where

"Or," as used in 1 Jac. I, c. 15, enumerby the navigation of such course may be impeded.” State v. Pool, 74 N. C. 402, 404. ating acts of creditors constituting acts of

bankruptcy, and specifying acts "to the inAct 1729 provided a penalty to be im- tent 'or' whereby his creditor may be deposed on any justice of the peace who sball feated," the word “or” must be construed marry the minor daughter of any person, "and,” as the intent and the act must both or who shall subscribe his name to the pub- concur to constitute the crime. Fowler v. lication of any intended marriage of a minor, Padget, 7 Term R. 509, 514. without having produced to him a certificate

Where a statute uses the words "willof the consent of the parent, guardian, or master, “if such parent, guardian, or mas

fully or maliciously" to qualify the act ter or mistress live within this province

therein declared an offense, the indictment ‘or can be consulted with.” Held, that the may charge the act as willfully "and" msword “or” in the last clause should be liciously done. State v. Philbin, 38 La. Ini construed to mean "and," since it was not

964, 966. the intention of the Legislature to send a "Or," as used in Rev. St. 0. 8. $ 11294 justice or other person on a voyage of dis- [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3607), authorizing covery out of the state to consult with the the Secretary of the Treasury, on application parent or guardian, and hence no penalty therefor, to remit "or" mitigate any fine os

66, 67.

penalty relating to steam vessels, or discon- (3 J. S. Green) 330, 331; Nevison v. Taylor, tinue any prosecution to recover penalties, 8 N. J. Law (3 Halst.) 43, 47; Holcomb v. denotes that the power granted is to do ei- Lake, 24 N. J. Law (4 Zab.) 686, 689; Harris ther-that is, to do both-of the two things v. Taylor, 5 N. J. Law (2 Southard) 413, 420; mentioned, which is the use of the word in re Gilmor's Estate, 26 Atl. 614, 616, 154 "or" quite as frequently as it is used in a Pa. 523, 35 Am. St. Rep. 855; Hawn v. Banks sense indicating that the power is to do one (N. Y.) 4 Edw. Ch. 664; Hauer's Lessee v. only of two things. Pollock v. The Laura Sheetz (Pa.) 2 Bin. 532, 544; In re Sheetz's (U. S.) 5 Fed. 133, 135.

Estate (Pa.) 3 Serg. & R. 487, 488, note; Tur

ner v. Whitted, 9 N. C. 613; Neal v. Cosden, As used in that part of the statutes 34 Md. 421, 427; Waller v. Ward (S. C.) 2 relating to crimes and criminal procedure Speers, 786, 798; Massie v. Jordan, 69 Tenn. "or" may be read “and." Rev. St. Wyo.

(1 Lea) 646, 648. 1899, Š 5190.

Courts of justice will transpose the clausSame-In pleading.

es of a will, and construe "or" to be "and," "Or," when used not to connect two dis- and "and" to be “or,” in such cases when it is tinct facts of different natures, but to char. ' absolutely necessary so to do to support the acterize and include two or more phases of evident meaning of the testator. Griffith's the same fact attended with the same result, Lessee v. Woodward (Pa.) 1 Yeates, 316, 318. as assigning, disposing, or of secreting prop. But where a testator's will gives his wife a erty as a ground for attachment, states but life estate, property to be divided on her a single ground, and not in the alternative. death between “his children or their heirs Sturz v. Fischer, 36 N. Y. Supp. 893, 894, 15 as the law directs,” a construction of “or” as Misc. Rep. 410.

"and” would render the clause meaningless,

and therefore the will means that the heirs In the last clause of an equity rule, pro- of a child dying before the life tenant should viding for an affidavit that the amendment take under the will, and not by descent. Tayis not made for delay “or” that the matter lor v Taylor, 92 N. W. 71, 118 Iowa. 407. is material, "or" should be read "and." Toomey v. Hughes (Pa.) 25 Wkly. Notes Cas.

The word "or," in a will, will be construed to mean "and," only where such a con

struction is necessary to prevent absurdity, "Or," as used in an indictment for sell- or to prevent a destruction of the devise for ing liquor "without having obtained a license uncertainty. Robb v. Belt, 51 Ky. (12 B. therefor as a tavern keeper ‘or' without be- Mon.) 643, 647; Harrison v. Bowe, 56 N. C. ing in any way authorized to sell the same 478, 481. as aforesaid," should be construed to mean "and," the use of "or" instead of "and" be

The word “or” in a bequest is never chaping fatal only where it renders the state ged to "and" except in cases where it is abment of the offense uncertain. People v.

solutely necessary to carry into effect the Gükinson (N. Y.) 4 Parker, Cr. R. 26.

manifest intention of the testator, and where,

without such alteration, the plain intention Where a warrant of attachment recites of the testator would be defeated. McGraw as a ground therefor that the defendant has v. Davenport (Ala.) 6 Port. 319, 332. disposed "or" is about to dispose of property, etc., the use of the disjunctive “or” in- in its office, but not always so.

The word “or” is ordinarily disjunctive

In the exstead of the conjunction "and" will be construed as a mere irregularity, and the word pression “You may ride or walk," an alter"or" held to mean "and.” Rothschild v.

native is presented to the person addressed, Mooney, 13 N. Y. Supp. 125, 59 Hun, 622.

and he is assured that he may choose wheth

er he will ride or walk. In the clause of a "Or" will be construed "and," and "and" will giving all testator's residuary estate to will be construed “or," as the necessities of bis spinster “or” unmarried nieces, six of bis the case may require, so that a complaint nieces never having been married, and two for surety of the peace is not bad because being widows at the time of his death, it was using "or" instead of "and.” Conklin v. held that the word “or” was not used disState, 8 Ind. 458.

junctively, and that testator did not mean

to present an alternative to his executor, and Same-In wills.

authorize him to pay to either class of nieces Whenever it is necessary in order to as

at his own election, but under the will the certain the intent with which words are used, widows took equally with the spinsters. In and to give them effect when their meaning re Conway's Estate (Pa.) 40 Wkly. Notes Cas. is ascertained, the disjunctive “or” will be 193, 194, 37 Atl. 204. read conjunctively, and vice versa. Noble v. The word "or," in a power in a will to Teeple, 49 Pac. 598, 599, 58 Kan. 398 (citing sell or dispose of land, is to be construed to Janney v. Sprigg (Md.] 7 Gill, 197, 48 Am. have the meaning of “and.” Elle v. Young, Dec. 557); Brown v. Mugway, 15 N. J. Law 23 N. J. Law (3 Zab.) 478, 483.

sense.

As used in a will providing that in case v. Deardorf, 39 Ill. 300, 301; Taylor v. Meder testator's son-in-law should marry, "or" | (Ky.) 58 S. W. 801, 803. Contra, see Mortimer should for any cause become unable properly | v. Hartley, 6 Exch. 47, 61; Van Vechten V. to maintain and educate his children, they | Pearson (N. Y.) 5 Paige, 512, 513; Green V. should receive one-third of the income of the Harvey, 1 Hare, 428, 431. property, "or" should be construed to mean "and." The disjunctive conjunction "or" is

As used in a will directing that, at the not a technical word, and the courts substi- majority "or” marriage of all the children tute the copulative conjunction "and” when named, the property should be sold and eqit is necessary to carry out an evident inten- ually divided among the children, “or” should tion. In re Boyd's Estate (Pa.) 9 Phila. 337, be construed to mean “and,” it being employ338 (citing Kelso v. Dickey (Pa.] 7 Watts & ed in a conjunctive, and not a disjunctive, S. 279).

Massey V. Davenport, 23 S. C. 453,

455. Where a will gives an estate to a devisee “or” his heirs or legal heirs, or issue, the

Where testator gave his premises to a word "or" will be construe as "and.” Noble devisee, his heirs and assigns, but, in case v. Teeple, 49 Pac. 598, 599, 58 Kan. 398; Par- he dies before he attains the age of 21 years kin v. Knight, 15 Sim. 83, 87; Penny v. Tur- / “or” marriage, then the premises should go ner, Id. 368, 371; Lachlan v. Reynolds, 9 to another, the word "or" should be conHare, 796, 798; Read v. Snell, 2 Atk. 642; strued “and.” Barker v. Suretees, 2 Strange, Harris v. Davis, 1 Colly. 416, 423; Wright v. 1175; Framlingham' v. Brand, 3 Atk. 390, Wright, 1 Ves. Sr. 409, 411; Miller v. Gilbert, 391; Read v. Snell, 2 Atk. 643, 645; Grim38 N. E. 979, 980, 144 N. Y. 68; Sorver v.

shawe v. Pickup, 9 Sim. 591, 595; Bostick Berndt, 10 Pa. (10 Barr) 213, 214; Slinglufrv. Lawton (S. C.) 1 Speer, 258, 262; CarV. Johns, 39 Atl. 872, 875, 87 Md. 273; Wil- penter v. Heard, 31 Mass. (14 Pick.) 449, 453; liams v. Williams, 16 S. W. 361, 363, 91 Ky. Hunt v. Hunt, 52 Mass. (11 Metc.) 88, 91; 547.

Arnold v. Buffum (U. S.) 1 Fed. Cas. 1170,

1175; Weddell v. Mundy, 6 Ves. 341, 343. In a will devising certain realty, and pro- Contra, see Lindsey v. Burfoot, 5 N. C. 494, viding that, on the death of the devisee "be- 495. fore maturity 'or' without issue,” the estate should go to another named, the word "or"!

The word "or," in a will in which the will be construed to mean “and,” so that the testator gave the income of his estate to his limitation over cannot take effect except upon vivor of them, neither to receive more than

grandson and his granddaughter, and the surthe happening of both contingencies, this construction being necessary to effectuate the in-one-half thereof, and which provided that in tention of the testator to provide for the is case of the death of the grandson “or” the sue of the first taker in any event. Carpen- daughter, without leaving children, the propter v. Boulden, 48 Md. 122, 129; Raborg's erty should be divided among testator's heirs, Adm'x v. Hammond's Adm’r (Ma.) 2 Har. & was construed to mean “and.” “UncertainG. 42, 53; Watkins v. Sears (Nd.) 3 Gill, 492, ty is sometimes the result of the improper 496; Walsh v. Peterson, 3 Atk. 193, 194; eral rule in such cases is that the one word

use of 'or' for 'and,' or vice versa. The gen. Soulle v. Gerrard, Cro. Eliz. 525; Mortimer v. Hartley, 3 Eng. Law & Eq. 532, 537; Mor- will be construed to have been used for the ris v. Morris, 21 Eng. Law & Eq. 152, 154; I will be defeated without such substitution,

other where the plain intent of the testator Fairfield v. Morgan, 5 Bos. & P. 38; Right but such construction is not admissible unv. Day, 16 East, 66, 69; Brown v. Mugway, less it be necessary to carry out the man15 N. J. Law (3 J. S. Green) 330; Holcomb v. ifest design of the will." "Unless or is Lake, 25 N. J. Law (1 Dutch.) 605, 608; read 'and,' the proceeds of the entire estate Shreve v. MacCrellish, 46 Atl. 581, 60 N. J. of the decedent are to be divided among his Eq. 198; Wardell v. Allaire, 20 N. J. Law heirs at law upon the death of either grand(Spencer) 6, 19; Shands y. Rogers (S. C.) 7 Rich. Eq. 422, 424; Hauer's Lessee v. Sheetz whereas the manifest intention was that only

child, leaving no child to survive him or her, (Pa.) 2 Bin. 532, 545; Appeal of Doebler, 64 upon the death of both of them, leaving no Pa. (14 P. F. Smith) 9, 14; Beltzhoover v. children surviving, bis estate was to be disCosten, 7 Pa. (7 Barr) 13, 20; Ray v. Enslin, tributed among his heirs at law.” In re 2 Mass. 554; Parker v. Parker, 46 Mass. (5 Tripp's Estate, 51 Atl. 983, 985, 202 Pa. 260. Metc.) 134, 137; Hunt v. Hunt, 52 Mass. (11 Metc.) 88, 98; Ward's Lessee v. Barrows, 2 As used in a will providing that in case Ohio St. 241, 247; Jackson v. Blanshaw (N. of the death of any of the legatees previous Y.) 6 Johns. 54, 56, 5 Am. Dec. 188; Tennell to the probating "or" execution of the will, v. Ford, 30 Ga. 707; Munro v. Holmes (S. C.) the share of the decedent should go to his 1 Brev. 319; China v. White (S. C.) 5 Rich. or her surviving children, the word “or” will Eq. 426, 433; Witsell v. Mitchell (S. C.) 3 be construed to mean “and," the words "pro Rich. Law, 289, 290; Waller v. Ward (s. C.) bating” and “executing" not being synonyms. 2 Speer, 786, 794; Phelps v. Bates, 5 Atl. 301, In re Lamb's Estate, 80 N. W. 1081, 1082, 122 302, 54 Conn. 11, 1 Am. St. Rep. 92; Kindig | Mich. 239.

In a devise to A. for life, remainder to found by the officer so that process may be B. and her heirs, but if B. die before A., "or" served. This may be either because he has it sbe die without heirs of her body, then to absconded, or because he secretes himself. C. and his heirs, the word "or" will be read | Hopkins v. Nichols, 22 Tex. 206, 208. as “and.” Wilkins v. Kemeys, 9 East, 366,

The word "or" is often used to express 376. See, also, Miles v. Dyer, 5 Sim. 435;

an alternative of terms, definitions, or exId., 8 Sim. 330, 332.

planations of the same thing in different

words. The word "or," as used in a judgNot construed as and.

ment against parties named therein, “or such "Or," in its ordinary and proper sense, of them as are now survivors," was used to is a disjunctive particle, and it will be so explain the meaning of the preceding clause, construed, unless there be something in the and the same persons were meant by both, context to give it a different meaning. Ox. and therefore the judgment was valid against sheer v. Watt, 44 S. W. 67, 68, 91 Tex. 402. the survivors. Downs V. Allen (U. S.) 22

The word "or" is said to be a disjunc- Fed. 805, 809. tire particle that marks an alternative, gen- A bond given at the port of New York, erally corresponding to “either," as “either where certain goods were imported, was conthis or that." It is said by Webster to be ditioned that the importer should pay $425, a connective that marks an alternative, as, that being the estimated duty based on the "You may read or may write"; that is, you invoice, “or” the amount that should be submay do one of the things, but not both. Aus- sequently ascertained to be due, or that he tin v. Oakes, 48 Hun, 492, 498, 1 N. Y. Supp. should within three years withdraw and ex307, 310. See, also, Third Nat. Bank v. Bond, port them or transport them to the Pacific 67 Pac. 818, 819, 64 Kan. 346; Elliott v. Tur-port. Held, that the word "or,” in the phrase ner, 2 Man., G. & S. 446, 461.

"or the amount which should be subsequently The word “or” in a contract will not be ascertained,” was implied literally, and not

Dumont v. construed to mean “and," where it connects as synonymously with "and.” propositions reasonably in the alternative. United States, 98 U. S. 142, 143, 25 L. Ed. 65. Thus, the word in a contract which binds

A city ordinance provided that no perthe contractor to supply so many pounds, son to whom a license to sell liquor should more or less, of oats, “or" such other quan- be granted should, after the hour of 8 o'clock tity, more or less, as may be required for p. m. from the 20th of September to the 20th the wants of certain government stations be of March, admit into his or her premises any tween a certain time, cannot be construed person of color, “or” in any manner sell or to mean "and,” and does not entitle the con- retail to the same, or any of them, any tractor to furnish all the oats which may be liquor whatsoever, should not be construed Deeded at the station. Merriam v. United to mean "and," so that the statute would States (U. S.) 14 Ct. Cl. 289-300.

read “admit into his or her premises,” etc., "Or" is a conjunction, marking distribu- “'and' in any manner,” etc. City Council v. tion, an alternative, or opposition, and the Van Roven (S. C.) 2 McCord, 465, 468. conjunction "nor" performs the same office As used in Act April 11, 1779, $ 2, proin negative propositions. The first is propo viding that the indenture of apprenticeship erly used in connection with “either,” and extended to assigns, and providing the ap. the latter with “neither.” Coxson v. Doland prentice "or" his or her parent or parents, (N. Y.) 2 Daly, 66, 67.

guardian or guardians, should give his or The conjunction “or” is not always dis- her consent to such assignment, “or” will not junctive in signification. There are familiar be construed as meaning "and.” Commoninstances given in law books in which the wealth v. Vanlear (Pa.) 1 Serg. & R. 248, 250. conjunction "or” is held to be equivalent in

“Or their treasurer," as used in a note meaning to the copulative conjunction "and," by the maker promising to pay a certain and such meaning is often given to the word sum to an association "or their treasurer," "or" in deeds and in wills for the purpose does not make it payable to one of two perof carrying out the intention of the party. sons, but are either surplusage, or declaraThere are also cases in which the word “or” tive of the agent by whom the payee will remay be permitted to retain its primary sig- ceive payment. Wells v. Monihan, 13 N. Y. nification as a disjunctive conjunction, and Supp. 156, 158, 59 Hun, 617. get the use of it will not vitiate an affidavit for attachment. There are cases where the

Where a bequest is made to a class of word "or" is used in the statement of two persons or their heirs, it is held that the or more phases of the same general fact, word “or” is tantamount to the words “in the and not to connect two distinct facts. For case of the death.” Brent v. Washington's illustration, where the statute says that, if Adm’r (Va.) 18 Grat. 526, 533. the debtor "absconds or secretes himself" so that process cannot be served on him, an

Same-In civil statutes. attachment may issue, here the general fact, As used in St. c. 36, art. 17, 8 1, provid0 to speak, is that the party cannot be ing that no execution shall issue to any other

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »