Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Law-Of-Contracts-2/Part-II-The-Law-Of-Contracts-Considered-In-Reference-To-The-Operation-of-Law-Up.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 22:34:04+00:00

Document:
The importance of a just and rational construction of every contract and every instrument, is obvious. But the importance of having this construction regulated by law, guided always by distinct principles, and in this way made uniform in practice, * may not be so obvious, although we think it as certain and as great. If any one contract is properly construed, justice is done to the parties directly interested therein. But the rectitude, consistency, and uniformity of all construction, enables all parties to do justice to themselves. For, then all parties, before they enter into contracts, or make or accept instruments, may know the force and effect of the words they employ, of the precautions they use, and of the provisions which they make in their own behalf, or permit to be made by other parties.
(a) The terms "interpretation" and "construction" are used interchangeably by writers upon the law. A distinction has been taken between them by Dr. Lieber, in his work upon "Legal and Political Hermeneutics. Interpretation as defined by him is "the art of finding out the true sense of any form of words; that is, the sense which their author intended; and of enabling others to derive from them the same idea which the author intended to convey." On the other hand, "construction is the drawing of conclusions respecting subjects that lie beyond the direct expression of the text, - conclusions which are in the spirit, though not within the letter of the text." See "Legal and Political Hermeneutics," ch. 1, sec. 8 ; ch. 3, sec 2; ch. 4 and ch. 5. Interpretation properly precedes construction, but it does not go beyond the written text. Construction takes place, where texts to be interpreted and construed, are to be reconciled with the rules of law, or with compacts or constitutions of superior authority, or where we reason from the aim or object of an instrument, or determine its application to cases unforeseen and unprovided for. The doctrine of cy pres belongs to construction. Rules of interpretation and construction should also be carefully distinguished from rules of law. See the able note of Mr. Preston, in his edition of Sheppard's Touchstone, p. 88; also, per Parke and Rolfe, BB., in Keightley v. Watson, 3 Exch. 716, quoted ante, vol. 1, pp. * 17, * 18. It is to be observed, also, " that when a general principle for the construction of an instrument is laid down, the court will not be restrained from making their own application of that principle, because there are cases in which it may have been applied in a different manner." Per Lord Eldon, C. J., in Browning v. Wright, 2 B. & P. 24. And see, to the same effect, the remarks of Lord Kenyan, in Walpole v. Cholmondeley, 7 T.R. 148.
1 The construction of a contract, unless there is something peculiar to the words, by reason of the custom of the trade to which the contract relates, is for the court. Per Lord Cairns, C, in Bowes v. Shand, 2 App. Cas. 455.
2 T. R. 760, seems contra, but that case was substantially overruled in Morrell v. Frith,3 M. &W. 402. "If I am called on to give an opinion," said Parke, B.,"I think the case of Lloyd v. Maund is not law." -Where the evidence of a contract consists in part of written evidence, and in part of oral communications, or other unwritten evidence, it is left to the jury to determine upon the whole evidence what the contract is. Edwards v. Goldsmith, 16 Penn. St. 43; Bomeisler v. Dobson, 5 Whart. 398; Morrell v. Frith, 3 M. & W. 404, per Lord Abinger. - In the case of libel, the meaning of the document forms part of the intention of the parties, and as such intention is a question for the jury, the document is submitted to them, the judge giving the legal definition of the offence. Parmiter v. Coupland, 6 M. & W. 108; per Parker, C. J., in Pierce v. The State, 18 N. H. 536, 562; per Lord Abinger, in Morrell v. Frith, 3 M. & W. 402. - So on a prosecution for sending a threatening letter, the jury will, upon examination of the paper, decide whether it contains a menace. Rex v. Girdwood, 2 East, P. C. 1120, 1 Leach's Crown Cases, 169.
(c) "When a new and unusual word is used in a contract, or when a word is used in a technical or peculiar sense, as applicable to any trade or branch of business, or to any particular class of people, it is proper to receive evidence of usage, to explain and illustrate it, and that evidence is to be considered by the jury; and the province of the court will then be, to instruct the jury what will be the legal effect of the contract or instrument, as they shall find the meaning of the word, modified or explained by the usage. But when no new word is used, or when an old word, having an established place in the language, is not apparently used in any new, technical, or peculiar sense, it is the province of the court to put a construction upon the written contracts and agreements of parties, according to the established use of language, as applied to the subject-matter, and modified by the whole instrument, or by existing circumstances.11 Per Shaw, C. J., in Eaton v. Smith, 20 Pick. 150; Brown v. Orland, 36 Me. 376; Burnham v. Allen, 1 Gray, 496. And see preceding note.
(cc) Chicago v. Sheldon, 9 Wall. 50.
(d) 3 BL Com. 434; 1 Fonb. on Eq. 147, n. (b); Hotham v. East India Co. 1 Doug. 277; Doe d. Long v. Laming, 2 Burr. 1108; Eaton v. Lyon, 3 Ves. 692; Ball v. Storie, 1 Simons & S. 210.
1 Where the figures "$50" were on the margin of a note, and it was uncertain whether the writing on its face indicated fifty or sixty dollars, the court, on oral evidence, left it to the jury to deride the actual amount intended, Paine v. Ringold, 43 Mich. 341; and where one party said, "Go on and cultivate my farm and raise crops, and I will do what is right by you," the jury and not the court must determine whether or not the remark refers to making payments as claimed by the one so directed, McKenzie v. Sykes, 47 Mich. 294.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.