The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-05-03
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.

TUEsDAY-The following important decision
was handed down yesterday by the law court:
Geo. L. Snow VS.. Andrew Pressey
Rescrtpt by Judge Walton-This is a bill in
equity, the prayer of which is that the plaintiff
may be allowed to redeem certain real estate
held by the defendant by virtue of deed alb
solute in form, but which, by reason of an in
strument Of defeasance executed at the same
time, was. in contemplation of law, no more
The court has already decided that the plain
tiff Is entitled to redeem, and the case has been
sent to master to ascertain the amount due
tons to the masters report. The principal
contention is in relation to the Interpretation of
single phrase in the Instrument of defeasance.
By that instrument the defendant agreed to re-
convey to the plaintiff the premises which the
latter had that day conveyed to him, upon the
receipt of the amount due on a mortgage which
and G. " candse with il tn the amount % Of ali
sey.". The contention is in relation to the
due said Candee and Pressey.'' The plaintiff
contends that it can mean only joint
claims. The defendant contends that it was
to include, debts due to him individually as
well as debts due to him and Candee jointly.
The master "a good lawyer has found df it
the Intention Of the parties to secure the debts
due from Snow to Pressey individually as well
as the debts due to him and Candee jointly.
we 1iIitlk III was p6FullSSlDle iOI W 81
ind. 1t often happens that the language OF
written contract is susceptible OF more than
one meaning. And, in such cases, it is always
allowable to take into consideration the stu
alton of the parties and the circumstances I'M
der which the writing was made, In order to as
certain the true meaning. Or, as the idea is
often expressed, the instrument may be read in
the light of the surrounding circumstances.
And this rule has been applied with great
liberality to mortgages in which the debts or
other claims intended to be secured have been
imperfectly, Obscurely or enormously de-
scribed. But this is a rule applicable only to
contracts in which the language used is fairly
susceptible of more than one Interpretation;
and it is then employed to enable the court to
determine which of two or more possible mean
ingS, was the one really intended by the parties.
In this case We think the words with the
amount of all other legal claims due said Can
dee and Pressey," as used in the instrument of
defeasance, are fairly susceptible of more than
one Interpretation. The master has found that
they were intended to include claims due to
Presley Individually as wellas claims due to
him and Candee jointly. We think it was com
petent for him to so find. We have examined
the Masters report with, care, and our conclu-
Sionis that none of the exceptions to it can be
sustained. He has reported in the alternative
three sums as due from the plaintiff to the de-
mine which of the sums the plaintiff shall be re-
quired to pay In order to redeem the property
covered by the mortgage. We are satisfied that
it must be the larger sum, namely, $10,894.39.
This was the amount due November 10, 1890.
If the plaintiff redeems, interest on that sum
must be added from that date. Decree accord
inply