McCarty v. Howell
Illinois Supreme Court
This was a suit against defendant for trespass on the case upon promises, damages $200, directed to the sheriff of Kane county.
Read the full summary
This was a suit against defendant for trespass on the case upon promises, damages $200, directed to the sheriff of Kane county. First count of the declaration avers that the defendant, on the 26th day of August, A. D. 1858, made a promissory note bearing date on that day, and then and there delivered the same to Gideon Marlett, by which said note the said defendant, by the name of S. McCarty,- promised to pay to Gideon Marlett, or bearer, by the name of G. Marlett, one hundred and twenty-five dollars with use, four months after the date thereof, or as soon as the said defendant shall be able…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
There is a rule universally recognized in the construction of statutes which is equally applicable to the construction of contracts. It is this: that one part of a statute must be so construed by another that the whole may, if possible, stand; and that if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence or word shall be superfluous, void or insignificant. There is another rule in the construction of written contracts, that the words used, where ambiguous, are to be construed most strongly against the party employing them, regard being had, however, to the apparent intention of the parties, as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stevens v. BluntMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
3Cited by11 opinions
- Siegel, Cooper & Co. v. Chicago Trust & Savings BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
- Flood v. PetryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Federal Insurance Co. v. I. Kruger, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2002
- Crass v. Scruggs & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1896
- Cisne v. ChidesterIllinois Supreme Court · 1877
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.