See note 9.

37 Ct. Cl. 33.

9. Ship's Papers, Cl. 465.

See The Brig Juno, 38 Ct.

Effect of Failure of Ship to Carry Document. A neutral vessel should be furnished with documents requisite to support her neutral character and the neutral character of the cargo; yet the want of any one of them is not conclusive against her. The Schooner Hazard, 39 Ct. Cl. 376.

Treaties Have Sometimes Prescribed the Evidence that Ship's Papers Should Show as to nationality and neutrality of vessel and cargo. Thus a treaty between France and the United States in 1778 contained provisions regarding the evidence which American and French vessels

should carry. See The Brig Dolphin, 36 Ct. Cl. 248. 1187. 5. Duties of Captors. The Schooner

712

Nancy, 37 Ct. Cl. 401; The Brigantine Speedwell, 39 Ct. Cl. 34.

6. As to Persons on Board. The Schooner Maria, 39 Ct. Cl. 147; The Schooner Nancy, 37 Ct. Cl. 401.

The Master of the Captured Vessel Has the Right to an Opportunity to Appear and Defend the Ship and its cargo against the alleged illegality of the voyage. The Brig Sally, 37 Ct. Cl. 74.

1188. 2. Duty to Send in Vessel. - The Schooner Nancy, 37 Ct. Cl. 401.

3. See note I. 4. See notes I, 2.

See notes 3, 4.

1. Instru

2. 6. Intention of Parties to Contracts Generally- United States. - Fox v. Tyler, (C. C. A.) 109 Fed. Rep. 258; Hull Coal, etc., Co. v. Empire Coal, etc., Co., (C. C. A.) 113 Fed. Rep. 256; Fitzgerald v. Rapid City First Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 114 Fed. Rep. 474; Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Eastern R. Co., (C. C. A.) 121 Fed. Rep. 609. See also Norton v. Shields, 132 Fed. Rep. 873.

Idaho. Porter v. Allen, Idaho 358. Illinois.

- Skinner v. Osgood, 83 Ill. App. 454, reversed on other grounds 186 Ill. 491; Whalen v. Stephens, 92 Ill. App. 235, affirmed 193 Ill. 121; People v. Harrison, 191 Ill. 257; Pease v. Rand, etc., Desk Co., 100 Ill. App. 244; Sexton v. Barrie, 102 Ill. App. 586; Sanitary Dist. v. McMahon, etc., Co., 110 Ill. App. 510; Cochran v. Vermilion County, 113 Ill. App. 140; Wheaton v. Bartlett, 105 Ill. App. 326. Kansas. Garden City v. Heller, 61 Kan.

New York. Van Schaick v. Lese, (Supm. Ct. Spec. T.) 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 610. Pennsylvania. Snowden v. Cavenaugh, 10 Kulp (Pa.) 1.

West Virginia. - Uhl v. Ohio River R. Co., 51 W. Va. 106; Gibney v. Fitzsimmons, 45 W. Va. 334.

3. 1. Intention Sought Is That Expressed. Pierpont v. Lanphere, 104 Ill. App. 232; Cameron v. Sexton, 110 Ill. App. 381, reversed on other grounds 212 Ill. 146; Rector v. Hartford Deposit Co., 190 Ill. 380; Hudson v. Columbian Transfer Co., (Mich. 1904) 100 N. W. Rep. 402; Dunbar v. Aldrich, 79 Miss. 698; Missouri Edison Electric Co. v. Bry, 88 Mo. App. 135; New York L. Ins., etc., Co. v. Hoyt, 161 N. Y. 1. 4. 1. Meaning of Words Used. - Western Hardware, etc., Co. v. Bancroft-Charnley Steel Co., (C. C. A.) 116 Fed. Rep. 176; Cameron v. Sexton, 110 Ill. App. 381, reversed on other grounds 173 N. Y. 303; New York L. Ins., etc., Miss. 698.

2. Adams v. O'Connor, 6 Ariz. 404; Dunbar v. Aldrich, 79 Miss. 698.

3. No Room for Construction in Absence of Ambiguity- United States. - Holmes v. Phenix Ins. Co., (C. C. A.) 98 Fed. Rep. 240; Moore v. U. S., 38 Ct. Cl. 590, reversed on other grounds 196 U. S. 157.

Illinois. Sanitary Dist. v. McMahon, etc., Co., 110 Ill. App. 510.

Missouri. - Missouri Edison Electric Co. v. Bry, 88 Mo. App. 135.

New York. - Kinney v. McBride, 88 N. Y. App. Div. 92; Molaney v. Iroquois Brewing Co., 63 N. Y. App. Div. 454, reversed on other grounds 173 N. Y. 303; New York L. Ins., etc., Co. v. Hoyt, 161 N. Y. 1.

Ohio. Cincinnati v. Cincinnati St. R. Co., 9 Ohio Dec. 235. 6 Ohio N. P. 140.

Oregon. Howell v. Johnson, 38 Oregon

--

The Same Principle.

See note 6.

-

Georgia. - Peterson v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 120 Ga. 967.

Idaho. Burke Land, etc., Co. v. Wells, 7 Idaho 42.

Illinois. Reeves v. Chandler, 113 Ill. App. 167; Ingraham v. Mariner, 194 Ill. 269; Foster v. Chicago, 197 Ill. 264; Wheaton v. Bartlett, 105 Ill. App. 326; McCoy v. Fahrney, 182 Ill. 60. Indiana. Ingle v. Bottoms, 160 Ind. 73, citing 17 AM. AND ENG. ENCYC. OF LAW (2d ed.) 5; Indiana Natural Gas, etc., Co. v. Grainger, 33 Ind. App. 559.

Iowa. Wallace v. Homestead Co., 117 Iowa 348, citing 16 AM, AND ENG. ENCYC. OF LAW (2d ed.) 5; Beedy v. Finney, 118 Iowa 276. Hunt v. Hunt, (Ky. 1904) 82 S.

Kentucky.

W. Rep. 998.

Louisiana.- Lozes v. Segura Sugar Co., 52 La. Ann. 1844; St. Landry State Bank v. Meyers, 52 La. Ann. 1769; Prentiss v. Lyons, 105 La. 382.

Massachusetts. Morrill, etc., Constr. Co. v. Boston, 186 Mass. 217.

Mississippi. Hardie Tynes Foundry, etc., Co. v. Glen Allen Oil Mill, 84 Miss. 259.

Missouri. Maginn v. Lancaster, 100 Mo. App. 116. See also McFarland v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 94 Mo. App. 336.

3. Every Clause or Word to Be Given Effect if Possible California. - Flinn v. Mowry, 131

Cal. 481.
Florida. L'Engle v. Scottish Union, etc., F.
Ins. Co., (Fla. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 462.
Illinois. - Sanitary Dist. v. McMahon, etc.,
-Co., 110 Ill. App. 510; Reeves v. Chandler, 113
Ill. App. 167; Cochran v. Vermilion County, 113
Ill. App. 140; Gage v. Cameron, 212 Ill. 146;
Mueller v. Northwestern University, 95 Ill. App.
258, affirmed 195 Ill. 236, 88 Am. St. Rep. 194.
Indiana. Ingle v. Bottoms, 160 Ind. 73,
citing 17 AM. AND ENG. ENCYC. OF LAW (2d ed.)
7; Indiana Natural Gas, etc., Co. v. Grainger, 33
Ind. App. 559.

Kentucky. Jacoby v. Nichols, (Ky. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 734.

Louisiana. Prentiss v. Lyons, 105 La. 382. Maine. - Proctor v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 96 Me. 458.

Nebraska.- McGavock v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 64 Neb. 440; State v. Mortensen, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 831; Lawton v. Fonner, 59 Neb.

214.

Pennsylvania. - Abbott's Estate, 198 Pa. St. 493; Hads v. Tiernan, 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 14. Utah. McKay v. Barnett, 21 Utah 239. West Virginia. - Uhl v. Ohio River R. Co., 51 W. Va. 106, citing 17 AM. AND ENG. ENCYC. OF LAW (2d ed.) 7.

Wisconsin. - Ullman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 112 Wis. 150, 88 Am. St. Rep. 949.

8. 1. Rule that Prior Clause Prevails. Vickers v. Electrozone Commercial Co., 67 N. J. L. 665; Blackwell v. Blackwell, 124 N. Car. 269. See also Beedy v. Finney, 118 Iowa 276. But the Granting Clause. - Dunbar v. Aldrich, 79 Miss. 698.

6. Grant Cannot Be Restricted or Diminished by Subsequent Clause. See Welch v. Welch, 183 Ill. 237.

9. 1. Transaction Incorporated in Several Writings - United States. Stadler v. Missouri River Power Co., 133 Fed. Rep. 314; Lillard v. Kentucky Distilleries, etc., Co., (C. C. A.) 134 Fed. Rep. 168.

California. - Meyer v. Weber, 133 Cal. 681; Flinn v. Mowry, 131 Cal. 481.

Illinois. Friederich v. Wombacher, 204 Ill. 72; Gould v. Magnolia Metal Co., 207 Ill. 172; Chicago Trust, etc., Bank v. Chicago Title, etc., Co., 92 Ill. App. 366, affirmed 190 Ill. 404, 83 Am. St. Rep. 138; Clarke v. Hunter, 83 Ill. App. 100, affirmed 184 Ill. 158, 75 Am. St. Rep. 160; Mathews v. Mathews, 86 Ill. App. 654.

Kentucky. Early v. Douglass, 110 Ky. 818, citing 17 AM. AND ENG. ENCYC. OF LAW (2d ed.) 9; Hacker v. Hoover, (Ky. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 382; Price v. Price, (Ky. 1902) 66 S. W. Rep. 529; Shuttleworth v. Kentucky Coal, etc.. Co., (Ky. 1901) 60 S. W. Rep. 534.

Louisiana. Lawler v. Bradford, 113 La. 415.

See note 8.

10. See notes I, 2, 3, 4.

Legal Terms. See notes 4, 5.

See note 1.

See note 3.

See notes 2, 3.

Stad

4. Must Relate to Same Subject-matter. ler v. Missouri River Power Co., 133 Fed. Rep. 314; Flinn v. Mowry, 131 Cal. 481; Chicago Trust, etc., Bank v. Chicago Title, etc., Co., 92 Ill. App. 366, affirmed 190 Ill. 404, 83 Am. St. Rep. 138; Gould v. Magnolia Metal Co., 207 Ill. 172; Early v. Douglass, 110 Ky. 818, citing 17 AM. AND ENG. ENCYC. OF LAW (2d ed.) 9; Rice v. McCague, 61 Neb. 861.

8. Writings Expressly Referred to. - Epworth League Training Assembly v. Olney, 136 Mich. 50; Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Mooresville Cotton Mills, 132 N. Car. 424; Utah Lumber Co. v. James, 25 Utah 434.

11. 1. Reference for Certain Purposes Only. Young . Borzone, 26 Wash. 4. 2. Ordinary Meaning England. North Eastern R. Co. v. Hastings, (1900) A. C. 260. United States. - Francis v. Heine SafetyBoiler Co., 112 Fed. Rep. 899; Fitzgerald v. Rapid City First Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 114 Fed. Rep. 474; Butte, etc., Consol. Min. Co. v. Montana Ore Purchasing Co., (C. C. A.) 121 Fed. Rep. 524.

California. - Adams v. Hopkins, 144 Cal. 19. See also Parrish v. Rosebud Min., etc.. Co., (Cal. 1903) 71 Pac. Rep. 694.

Illinois. Cameron v. Sexton, 110 Ill. App. 381, reversed on other grounds 212 Ill. 146. Indiana. Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Vogel, (Ind. App. 1905) 73 N. E. Rep. 612.

Iowa. Wood v. Allen, 111 Iowa 97. Kentucky. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Louisville Southern R. Co., 100 Ky. 690; Pettit v. Norman, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 622.

Louisiana. Lozes v. Segura Sugar Co., 52 La. Ann. 1844.

Missouri. McFarland v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 94 Mo. App. 336; Missouri Edison Electric Co. v. Bry, 88 Mo. App. 135; Maginn v. Lancaster, 100 Mo. App. 116; St. Louis Trust Co. v. York, 81 Mo. App. 342.

Nebraska. Horton v. Rohlff, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 36.

Ohio. - M. E. Church v. Ashtabula Water Co., 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 648, 20 Ohio Cir. Ct. 578. Pennsylvania. Abbott's Estate, 198 Pa. St.

493.

West Virginia. - Williams v. South Penn Oil Co., 52 W. Va. 181; Carnegie Natural Gas Co. v. South Penn Oil Co., 56 W. Va. 402. See also Waldron v. Taylor, 52 W. Va. 284.

Wisconsin.. - Hart v. Hart, 117 Wis. 639. "It must be assumed, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, that the grantor selected language adapted to express his meaning." Beedy v. Finney, 118 Iowa 276.

The Character "&" means "and." Beedy v. Finney, 118 Iowa 276.

12. 1. Arbitrary Meaning May Be Given to Words. - Lull v. Anamosa Nat. Bank, 110 Iowa 537; Wood v. Allen, 111 Iowa 97.

-

3. Trade Usage as to Meaning of Terms. Lillard v. Kentucky Distilleries, etc., Co., (C. C. A.) 134 Fed. Rep. 168; Wilcox v. Baer, 85 Mo. App. 587; Seymour v. Armstrong, 62 Kan. 720. See also Grasmier v. Wolf, (Iowa 1902) 90 N. W. Rep. 813; Glenn v. Strickland, z1 Pa. Super. Ct. 88.

13. 2. Technical Terms and Expressions.Butte, etc., Consol. Min. Co. v. Montana Ore Purchasing Co., (C. C. A.) 121 Fed. Rep. 524; Bragg v. State, 134 Ala. 165, citing 17 AM. AND ENG. ENCYC. OF LAW (2d ed.) 13; Kelly v. Fejervary, 111 Iowa 693; Seymour v. Armstrong, 62 Kan, 720.

Technical Words are to be interpreted as usually understood by persons in the business or profession to which they relate. Peterson v. Modern Brotherhood of America, 125 Iowa 562.

The California Statute, providing that "technical words are to be interpreted as usually understood by persons in the profession or business to which they relate," applies only to words exclusively technical, or that are shown to be used in a technical sense. Adams v. Hopkins, 144 Cal. 19.

3. Technical Meaning Gives Way to Manifest Intention. Bragg v. State, 134 Ala. 165,* citing 17 AM. AND ENG. ENCYC. OF LAW (2d ed.) 13; Uhl v. Ohio River R. Co., 51 W. Va. 106. 4. Legal Terms. - Harrington v. Gibson, 109 Ky. 752; New York L. Ins., etc., Co. v. Hoyt, 161 N. Y. I.

5. Legal Terms Yield to Intent. Fullagar v. Stockdale, (Mich. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 576; Uhl v. Ohio River R. Co., 51 W. Va. 106.

14. 1. Construction Fortius Contra Proferentem -In Case of Deeds. -Adams v. Hopkins, 144 Cal. 19; Rankin v. Rankin, 111 Ill. App. 403;

18. 2. Legality of Instrument.

note 4.

1. Validity of Instru

See note 2.

Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Hogan, 105 Ill. App. 136, reversed on other grounds 202 Ill. 206; Hunt v. Hunt, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 998; Cochran v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 94 Mo. App. 469. See also Williams v. South Penn Oil Co., 52 W. Va. 181.

The Reason of the Rule is that men are supposed to take care of themselves, and that he who chooses the words by which a right is given ought to be held to the strict interpretation of them, rather than he who only accepts them. Gillet v. Bank of America, 160 N. Y. 549.

Intent Controls. Negaunee Iron Co. v. Iron Cliffs Co., 134 Mich. 264.

15. 3. In Contracts United States. Edgar, etc., Foundry, etc., Works v. U. S., 34 Ct. Cl. 205; Moore v. U. S., 38 Ct. Cl. 590, reversed on other grounds 196 U. S. 157

Arkansas. Allen-West Commission Co. v. People's Bank, (Ark. 1905) 84 S. W. Rep. 1041; Leslie v. Bell, 73 Ark. 338.

California. - Laidlaw v. Marye, 133 Cal. 170. Georgia. McLelland v. Singletary, 113 Ga. 601. See also Singer v. Grand Rapids Match Co., 117 Ga. 86.

Illinois. Mueller v. Northwestern University, 95 Ill. App. 258, affirmed 195 Ill. 236, 88 Am. St. Rep. 194; Kohlsaat v. Illinois Trust, etc., Bank, 102 Ill. App. 110; Harlev v. Sanitary Dist., 107 Ill. App. 546.

Louisiana. St. Landry Meyers, 52 La. Ann. 1769.

State Bank V.

- Gillet v. Bank of America, 160

Holmes v. PheFed. Rep. 240;

16. 1. Insurance Contract. nix Ins. Co., (C. C. A.) 98 L'Engle v. Scottish Union, etc., F. Ins. Co., (Fla. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 462. See also Brooks

v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., 70 N. J. L. 36. 2. Bill or Note. See Gillet v. Bank of America, 160 N. Y. 549.

3. Contracts of Guaranty. - Bowser v. Patrick, (Ky. 1901) 65 S. W. Rep. 824. 6. Rule One of Last Resort. - Losecco v. Gregory, 108 La. 648; Negaunce Iron Co. v. Iron Cliff Co., 134 Mich. 264.

17. 2. Promisor's Knowledge of Promisee's Understanding of Contract. — Laidlaw v. Marye, 133 Cal. 170; Wood v. Allen, 111 Iowa 97; People's Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Klauber, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 1072; Carlson v. Holm, (Neb. 1901) 95 N. W. Rep. 1125; Gillet v. Bank of Amercia, 160 N. Y. 549; American Soda Fountain Co. v. Gerrer, 14 Okla. 258. 4. Construed So as to Avoid Invalidity. - Equitable Loan, etc., Co. v. Waring, 117 Ga. 599, 97 Am. St. Rep. 177; Horton v. Rohlff, (Neb. 1903)

95 N. W. Rep. 36; Union Trust Co. v. Owen, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 60; Dallas County v. Club Land, etc., Co., 95 Tex. 200; Durand v. Heney, 33 Wash. 38; Loper v. Sheldon, 120 Wis. 26.

18. 1. Instrument to Be Construed So as to Avoid Illegality. Adams v. Hopkins, 144 Cal. 19; Equitable Loan, etc., Co. v. Waring, 117 Ga. 599, 97 Am. St. Rep. 177; Horton v. Rohlff, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 36; Brien v. Stone, 82 N. Y. App. Div. 450.

-L'Engle v. Scottish Union, etc., F. Ins. Co., (Fla. 1904) 37 So. Rep. 462. Illinois. Wheaton v. Bartlett, 105 Ill. App. 326; Rankin v. Rankin, 111 Ill. App. 403. Iowa. Peterson v. Modern Brotherhood of America, 125 Iowa 562.

Kentucky. Hunt v. Hunt, (Ky. 1904) 82 S. W. Rep. 998.

Michigan. - Fullagar v. Stockdale, (Mich. 1904) 101 N. W. Rep. 576.

Nebraska. - Horton v. Rohlft, (Neb. 1903) 95 N. W. Rep. 36; McGavock v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 64 Neb. 440.

Will Construed as Deed. - Jacoby v. Nichols, (Ky. 1901) 62 S. W. Rep. 734.

Unconditional Contracts Favored. v. Henderson, 128 Ala. 221.