 | William Maxwell Evarts - 1872 - 124 halaman
...introduced to be used only in case his first general rule does not apply. This first proposition is, that " it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation." Now these Rules of the Treaty are the deliberate and careful expression of the will of the two nations... | |
 | United States. Department of State - 1873 - 686 halaman
...introduced to be used only in case his first general rule does not apply. This first proposition is, that "it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation." Now these Rules of the Treaty are the deliberate and careful expression of the will of the two nations... | |
 | New York (State). Superior Court (New York), James Clark Spencer, Samuel Jones - 1874 - 658 halaman
...sense, they are to be understood in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense (Greenl. on EC., § 27Sj. It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation (Broom's Leg. Max.), and parol evidence should never be allowed to create an ambiguity where none exists... | |
 | Theodore Sedgwick - 1874 - 750 halaman
...classifications it has been attempted to frame formal rules for the various modes of interpretation, as — It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. — . When we see what is the sense that agrees with the intention of the instrument, it is not allowable... | |
 | Nathan Howard (Jr.) - 1873 - 618 halaman
...Co. they are to be understood in their plain, ordinary and popular sense (Greenl. on Ev., § 278). It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation (Broom's Leg. Max.} ; and parol evidence should never be allowed to create an ambiguity where none... | |
 | John Barbee Minor - 1877 - 1150 halaman
...interpretation, namely, Quotles in verbis nulla est ambiyuitas, ibi nulla expositio contra verba fienda est, — it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation, nor will the law make an exposition against the express words and intent of the parties. (Broom's Max.... | |
 | John Townshend - 1877 - 838 halaman
...7 Adol. & El. NS 67 ; Joralemon v. Pomeroy. 2 New Jer. 271 ; Watson v. Nicholas, 6 Humph. 174. But "it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation." (McCluskey v. Cromwell, II NY 601 ; and ante, note p. 171.) 4 Clegg v. Laffer, 3 Moo. & Sc. 727 ; 10... | |
 | Nevada. Supreme Court - 1877 - 1090 halaman
...law. (26 Cal. 183; Gill. & John. 383; Sedg. Stat. Law, 592.) TD Edwards and WS Wood, for Kespondent: It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. (Vattell, b. 2, Ch. 17, sec. 263.) The statute declares that the lien shall be. exempt, and therefore... | |
 | Henry Wager Halleck - 1878 - 588 halaman
...down several maxims for the interpretation of treaties, which may be briefly stated as follows : ist. It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation, for when a treaty is conceived in clear and precise terms, and the sense is manifest, and leads to... | |
 | California. Supreme Court - 1879 - 716 halaman
...remaining. For it is the first general maxim of interpretation laid down in the best autherities, that it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. When the words of an Act are in clear and precise terms; when its meaning is evident, and leads to... | |
| |
It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation, and when the words have a definite and precise meaning, to go elsewhere in search of conjecture in order to restrict or extend the meaning. 
