4. Substitution of Words. On the same principle one word will be substi- 5. False Grammar. Grammatical inaccuracies are immaterial, provided. 6. Incorrect Spelling. Incorrect spelling is likewise disregarded.5 - - X. PUNCTUATION. The punctuation of an instrument may be considered Missouri. -State v. McElhaney, 20 Mo. See also supra, this title, Meaning of Words - quar- Illustrations. In Fowler v. Woodward, 26 - In Richmond v. Woodard, 32 Vt. 833. a Description of Parties. In Sisson v. Don- Calls in Description. So "north " in a de- 2. Grammatical Inaccuracy Immaterial - Eng- - - - 3. Relative Words Refer to Nearest Antecedent. 4. Intention Governs. Guier's Case, 1 Dyer So where a contract for the sale of a time- piece contained a clause, "which I warrant to - 5. Incorrect Spelling Immaterial. Hogans v. 6. Punctuation. - Ewing v. Burnet, II Pet. 7. Ineffective as Against Plain Meaning of In. punctuation marks may be inserted by the court in construing the instrument.1 XI. WRITTEN MATTER CONTROLS PRINTED. - Where an instrument consists - XII. SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. In interpreting a writing, the court, sion, 48 La. Ann. 1036; Weatherly v. Mister, 1. Punctuation Marks May Be Inserted. - Eng- 2. Written Matter Controls Printed - England. United States. - Sturm v. Boker, 150 U. S. Alabama. Thornton v. Sheffield, etc., R. Illinois. - American Express Co. v. Pinck- - Iowa. McNear v. McComber, 18 lowa 17; Maine. Cushman v. Northwestern Ins. Michigan. Russell v. Bondie, 51 Mich. 76; - Ortt v. Minneapolis, etc., R. - - New York. Harper v. Albany Mut. Ins. North Carolina. - Millhiser v. Erdmann, 103 Ohio. Germania Ins. Co. v. Sherlock, 25 Pennsylvania. - Duffield r. Hue, 129 Pa. St. Vermont. - Carrigan . Lycoming F. Ins. Co., 53 Vt. 418, 38 Am. Rep. 687; Cummings -- Reason of Rule. In Joyce v. Realm Marine - -- " Pennsylvania. Wheeling, etc., R. Co. v. - 4. Surrounding Circumstances- United States. Alabama. Crass v. Scruggs, 115 Ala. 258. Colorado. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Anderson, relations of the parties, the nature and situation of the subject-matter, and the apparent purpose of making the instrument or contract in question. Kinney v. Hooker, 65 Vt. 333, 36 41 Am. Dec. 136; Strong v. Benedict, 5 Conn. 210; Goodyear v. Shanahan, 43 Conn. 204. Illinois. Hadden v. Shoutz, 15 Ill. 581; Torrence v. Shedd, 156 Ill. 194; Ferry v. Miltimore, 64 Ill. App. 557; Field v. Leiter, 118 Ill. 17; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Koelle, 104 Ill. 455. Indiana. - Cravens v. Eagle Cotton Mills Co., 120 Ind. 6, 16 Am. St. Rep. 298; H. G. Olds Wagon Works v. Coombs, 124 Ind. 62. Iowa. Des Moines County v. Hinkley, 62 Iowa 637. Kansas. Simpson v. Kimberlin, 12 Kan. 579: Bell v. Rankin, 1 Kan. App. 209. Maine. Treat v. Strickland, 23 Me. 234; Bradford v. Cressey, 45 Me. 9; Abbott v. Abbott, 53 Me. 356. Maryland. -Zimmer v. Miller, 64 Md. 296; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Brydon, 65 Md. 198, 57 Am. Rep. 318. Massachusetts. Adams v. Frothingham, 3 Mass. 352, 3 Am. Dec. 151; Stoops v. Smith, 100 Mass. 63, 1 Am. Rep. 85; Coogan v. Burling Mills, 124 Mass. 390; Miller v. Stevens, 100 Mass. 518, I Am. Rep. 139; Farnsworth v. Boardman, 131 Mass. 115; Butterworth v. Western Assur. Co., 132 Mass. 489; Norway Plains Sav. Bank v. Moors, 134 Mass. 129; Aldrich v. Aldrich, 135 Mass. 153: Rollstone Nat. Bank v. Carleton, 136 Mass. 226. Michigan. Spaulding v. Coon, 50 Mich. 622; Ferris v. Wilcox, 51 Mich. 105, 47 Am. Rep. 551; Newaygo Mfg. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 64 Mich. 114. Vermont. Am. St. Rep. 864. West Virginia. - Heatherley v. Farmers' Bank, 31 W. Va. 70; Scraggs v. Hill, 37 W. Va. 706; Shrewsbury v. Tufts, 41 W. Va. 212. Illustrations. - While the first legal tender case was pending in the United States Supreme Court, a contract was made containing a stipulation that the parties should be bound by any decision thereafter rendered in regard to legal tender notes by that court; and it was decided that the pendency of such case was a circumstance with reference to which the contract was made, and that therefore the parties were bound by the decision rendered in that case and not by the subsequent decision by which it was overruled. Woodruff . Woodruff, 52 N. Y. 53. Penalty or Liquidated Damages. So it has been decided that whether damages fixed by a contract for failure to perform it are to be regarded as in the nature of a penalty or as liquidated damages is to be determined from the language of the contract construed in the light of the nature and circumstances of the case. Colwell v. Lawrence, 38 N. Y. 71; Little v. Banks, 85 N. Y. 258; Noyes 7. Phillips, 60 N. Y. 40S. 1. Relation of Parties - England. - Humfrey v. Dale, 7 El. & Bl. 266, 90 E. C. L. 266. Alabama. Crass v. Scruggs, 115 Ala. 258. Illinois. Hall v. Emporia First Nat. Bank, 133 Ill. 234. Massachusetts. - Farnsworth v. Boardman, 131 Mass. 115; Dwelley v. Dwelley, 143 Mass. 509. New Hampshire. 51 Wheeler v. Traders' Ins. Co., (N. H. 1885) I N. Eng. Rep. 32I. New York. Blossom v. Griffin, 13 N. Y. 569, 67 Am. Dec. 75. Minnesota. - Grueber v. Lindenmeier, 42 Minn. 99. Missouri. Patterson v. Camden, 25 Mo. 13; Belch v. Miller, 32 Mo. App. 387; Craw. ford v. Elliott, 78 Mo. 497. New Hampshire. - Lane v. Thompson, 43 N. H. 320; Winnipisseogee Lake Cotton, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Perley, 46 N. H. 83. New Jersey. Morris Canal, etc., Co. v. Matthiesen, 17 N. J. Eq. 385; Dunn v. English, 23 N. J. L. 126. New York. - French v. Carhart, 1 N. Y. 96; Blossom v. Griffin, 13 N. Y. 569, 67 Am. Dec. 75; Griffiths v. Hardenbergh, 41 N. Y. 464: Knapp v. Warner, 57 N. Y. 668; White's Bank v. Myles, 73 N. Y. 335, 29 Am. Rep. 157; Union Trust Co. v. Whiton, 97 N. Y. 172; Kingsland v. New York, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 198; Bickett v. Taylor, (Supm. Ct. Gen. T.) 55 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 126; Pitney v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 335; Stapenhorst v. Wolff, 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 25: Lyon v. Hersey, 103 N. Y. 264. Ohio. - Oldham v. Broom, 28 Ohio St. 41; Dayton v. Hooglund, 39 Ohio St. 671. - 2. Nature and Situation of Subject-matter. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Denver, etc., R: Co., 143 U. S. 596; John Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Patterson, 103 Ind. 582, 53 Am. Rep. 550; Gray v. Saco Water Power Co., 85 Me. 526; Clark v. Houghton, 12 Gray (Mass.) 38; Dwelley v. Dwelley, 143 Mass. 509; Smith v. Brown, 66 Tex. 543. So in order to resolve a doubt or uncertainty in respect to the description in a deed, reference may be made to the condition of the property, the state of the title, and the boundaries. Cannon v. Emmans, 44 Minn. 294. 3. Purpose of Instrument or Contract - - United States. Brick v. Brick, 98 U. S. 514; Heny. ford v. Davis, 102 U. S. 235; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Denver, etc., R. Co., 143 U. S. 96. Alabama. - Brantley. Southern L. Ins. Co., 53 Ala. 554; Mason v. Alabama Iron Co., 73 Ala. 270. These surrounding circumstances, however, cannot be considered when the instrument is in itself plain and unambiguous without reference to them, since their only possible effect in such a case would be to give the instrument a meaning inconsistent with the language used therein.1 It is but another statement of the same rule to say, as is frequently done, that the court will, if necessary, put itself in the place of the parties and read the instrument in the light of the circumstances surrounding them at the time it was made and of the objects which they evidently had in view.2 Preliminary Negotiations. On the same principle preliminary negotiations leading up to a contract may be considered for the purpose of determining the meaning of words and expressions used in the contract, this not involving a variance of the terms of the contract, but merely enabling the court to carry out the intentions of the parties.3 The construction which the parties I have, by their acts, placed on an ambiguous instrument is entitled to great, Missouri. Lakenan v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 36 Mo. App. 363. New Hampshire. Wheeler v. Traders' Ins. Co., (N. H. 1885) r N. Eng. Rep. 321. New York. - Marsh v. McNair, 99 N. Y. 174. 1. Circumstances Considered Only in Case of Ambiguity. - Adams, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Cook, 16 Ill. App. 161; Plano Mfg. Co. v. Ellis, 68 Mich. 101; Reynolds v. Commerce F. Ins. Co., 47 N. Y. 597; Muldoon v. Deline, 135 N. Y. 150. In Springsteen v. Samson, 32 N. Y. 703, Potter, J., said: "It is conceded to be a sound rule in the construction of contracts that where the language is clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous, the contract is to be interpreted by its own language, and courts are not at liberty to look at extrinsic circumstances surrounding the transaction, or elsewhere, for reasons to ascertain its intent; the understanding of the parties must be deemed to be that which their own written agreement declares." 2. Court Stands in Place of Parties - United States. Merriam v. U. S., 107 U. S. 441; Mississippi River Logging Co. v. Robson, 32 U. S. App. 520; Prentice v. Duluth Storage, etc., Co., 58 Fed. Rep. 437; Rockefeller v. Merritt, 76 Fed. Rep. 909, 40 U. S. App. 666; Speed v. St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Terminal Co., 86 Fed. Rep. 235, 57 U. S. App. 526. California. - Hibernia Sav., etc., Soc. v. Maryland. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Brydon, 65 Md. 198, 57 Am. Rep. 318. Massachusetts. - Crafts v. Hibbard, 4 Met. (Mass.) 438. Minnesota. Witt v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 38 Minn. 122; Austrian v. Davidson, 21 Minn. 117; Everett v. Continental Ins. Co., 21 Minn. 76. taken into consideration, if the language be doubtful, to enable the court to arrive at the real intention of the parties, and to make a correct application of the words of the contract to the subject-matter and the objects professed to be described, for the law concedes to the court the same light and information that the parties enjoyed, so far as the same can be collected from the language employed, the subject matter, and the surrounding facts and circumstances." Moran v. Prather, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 501. Code Civ. Pro. Mont. (1895), § 3136, provides that the court is entitled to receive evidence of the circumstances under which the instrument was made, including the situation of the subject of the instrument and of the parties to it, so that the judge be placed in the position of those whose language he is to interpret." See Watson v. O'Neill, 14 Mont. 197. 44 Pennsylvania. Vermont. Hart v. Hammett, 18 Vt. 127. See, however, remarks of Blackburn, L. J., in Inglis v. Buttery, 3 App. Cas. 576 et seq. Illustrations. In Gray v. Harper, 1 Story (U. S.) 574, the question being as to the meaning of the word "cost" in a contract, Story, J., said, in charging the jury, that conversations at the time of making the contract" may be deemed a part of the res gesta, and thus may be referred to as explanatory of the real intentions of the parties in the use of the word." if not controlling, weight in determining its proper construction.1 Such practical construction will, however, be given weight only when the contract or instrument is ambiguous, since a construction contrary to the plain terms - United States. - Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. Alley, 43 U. S. App. 169; Topliff v. Topliff, 122 U. S. 121; District of Columbia v. Gallaher, 124 U. S. 505; Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 254; Interstate Land Co. v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 275; Davis v. Shafer, 50 Fed. Rep. 764; Leavitt v. Windsor Land, etc., Co., 54 Fed. Rep. 439; Chicago v. Sheldon, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 50; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Trimble, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 367; Carr v. U. S., 22 Ct. Cl. 152; Irwin v. U. S., 16 How. (U. S.) 513. Arkansas. Robbins v. Kimball, 55 Ark. 414. 29 Am. St. Rep. 45. California. - Katz . Bedford, 77 Cal. 319; Mulford v. Le Franc, 26 Cal. 88. II Colo. 293. Connecticut. - French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 439. 21 Am. Dec. 680; Brigham v. Ross, 55 Conn. 373. Florida. - Webster v. Clark, 34 Fla. 637, 43 Am. St. Rep. 217; Shouse . Doane, 39 Fla. 95. Illinois. Leavers v. Cleary, 75 Ill. 349; Garrison v. Nute, 87 Ill. 215; People v. Mur. phy, 119 Ill. 159; Hall v. Emporia First Nat. Bank, 133 Ill. 234, 35 Ill. App. 116; Street v. Chicago Wharfing, etc., Co., 157 Ill. 605; Work v. Welsh, 160 Ill. 468; Home Nat. Bank v. Waterman, 30 Ill. App. 535; Hammerquist v. Swensson, 44 Ill. App. 627; Mohr v. McKenzie, 60 Ill. App. 575; Siegel v. Colby, 61 Ill. App. 315; Burgess v. Badger, 124 Ill. 288. Indiana. - Reissner v. Oxley, 80 Ind. 580; Willcuts v. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co., 81 Ind. 300; Etna L. Ins. Co. v. Nexsen, 84 Ind. 347, 43 Am. Rep. 91; Vinton v. Baldwin, 95 Ind. 433: Dwenger v. Geary, 113 Ind. 106; Pate v. French, 122 Ind. 10; Ingle v. Norrington, 126 Ind. 174; Lyles v. Lescher, 108 Ind. 382; Vincennes v. Citizens' Gas Light Co., 132 Ind. 114; Smith v. Miami County, 6 Ind. App. 153. Iowa. Pratt v. Prouty, 104 lowa 419. Louisiana. Wilcoxen v. Bowles, 1 La. Ann. 230; Parrott v. Wikoff, I La. Ann. 232; Williams v. McHatton, 16 La. Ann. 196; Frigerio v. Stillman, 17 La. Ann. 23; Commercial Bank v. New Orleans, 17 La. Ann. 190. - Maryland. Citizens' F. Ins., etc., Co. v. Doll, 35 Md. 89, 6 Am. Rep. 360; Mitchell v. Wedderburn, 68 Md. 139. Compare Hutchins v. Dixon, 11 Md. 29. Met. Massachusetts. Stone v. Clark, I (Mass.) 378, 35 Am. Dec. 370; Fogg v. Middlesex Mut. F. Ins. Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 337; Jennings . Whitehead, etc., Mach. Co., 138 Mass. 594. Michigan. Switzer v. Pinconning Mfg. Co.. 59 Mich. 488; Hoag v. Place, 93 Mich. 450; McVicar v. Denison, 81 Mich. 348; Monfort v. Stevens, 68 Mich. 61. Minnesota. - Luverne First Nat. Bank v. Jagger, 41 Minn. 308; Staples v. Edwards, etc., Lumber Co., 56 Minn. 16; Hill v. Duluth City, 57 Minn. 231. Missouri.- Price v. Evans, 26 Mo. 30; St. Louis Gaslight Co. v. St. Louis, 46 Mo. 121; Jones v. De Lassus, 84 Mo. 541; Mathews v. Danahy, 26 Mo. App. 660; Belch v. Miller, 32 Mo. App. 387; Sedalia Brewing Co. v. Sedalia Water Works Co., 34 Mo. App. 49; Deutmann v. Kilpatrick, 46 Mo. App. 624; Rose v. Eclipse Carbonating Co., 60 Mo. App. 28; Curtin v. Grand Lodge, etc., 65 Mo. App. 294, 2 Mo. App. Rep. 1206. Nebraska. - Davis v. Ravenna Creamery Co., 48 Neb. 471, 4 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. N. S. 191; Hale v. Sheehan, 52 Neb. 184; Rathbun v. McConnell, 27 Neb. 239; Paxton v. Smith, 41 Neb. 56. New Jersey. Helme v. Strater, 52 N. J. Eq. 591; Dwyer v. Bonitz, (N. J. 1895) 31 Atl. Rep. 172; Schmitz v. Scheifele, (N. J. 1887) 5 Cent. Rep. 833. New York. - French v. Carhart, 1 N. Y. 96; Syms v. New York, 105 N. Y. 153; Nearpass . Newman, 106 N. Y. 47; Parks z. Jacob Dold Packing Co., (Buffalo Super. Ct. Gen. T.) 6 Misc. (N. Y.) 570; Tilden v. Tilden, 8 N. Y. App. Div. 99; Stapenhorst v. Wolff, 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 25; Livingston v. Ten Broeck, 16° Johns. (N. Y.) 15, 8 Am. Dec. 287. Ohio. Butler v. Moses, 43 Ohio St. 166. West Virginia. Heatherly v. Farmers' Bank, 31 W. Va. 70. Wisconsin. - Hosmer v. McDonald, 80 Wis. 54: Janesville Cotton Mills . Ford, 82 Wis. 416. Illustrations. In Robinson v. U. S., 13 Wall. (U. S.) 363, where one contracted to deliver a certain quantity of barley without any specification as to whether the delivery should be made in bulk or in sacks, the court treated the fact that for a period of six months the barley was delivered in sacks as a proper reason for construing the contract as requiring a delivery in sacks rather than in bulk. So where a building contract was ambiguous as to which of the parties was to furnish stone for certain parts of the building, the fact that while the work was in progress one of them did furnish it was held to show that he was required by the contract so to do. Vermont St. M. E. Church z. Brose, 104 Ill. 206. |