McMillin v. Titus
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 103, Oct. T., 1908, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Greene Co., May T., 1905, No. 86, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of Mary B. McMillin et al. v. L. C. Titus. Issue to determine title to minerals. Before Holt, P. J., specially presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appealed. Error assigned among others was in refusing binding instructions for plaintiffs.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
In construing a contract, the language should be interpreted so that the agreement as a whole may be carried into effect. If possible, no part of the contract is to be disregarded or treated as redundant. Repugnant clauses must be reconciled if it can be done. It cannot be assumed that the parties inserted repugnant or contradictory clauses or sentences in their contract, and, therefore, when there is an apparent contradiction in different parts of the instrument, it must be reconciled if possible so that the whole agreement will be given effect as expressing…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Connery v. BrookeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
- McKeesport Machine Co. v. Ben Franklin InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Braddock Wire Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Richardson v. ClementsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
- Gillespie v. IsemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by57 opinions
- Easton v. Washington County InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Foulke v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- MOWRY v. McWherterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
- Huffman v. HuffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Minnotte AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.