The first point is, to ascertain what the parties themselves meant and understood. But, however important this inquiry may be, it is often insufficient to decide the whole question. The rule of law is not that the court will always construe a contract to mean that which the parties to it meant; but rather that the court will give to the contract the construction which will bring it as near to the actual meaning of the parties as the words they saw fit to employ, when properly construed, and the rules of law will permit. In other words, courts cannot adopt a construction of any legal instrument which shall do violence to the rules of language, or to the rules of law. (f) Words * must not be forced away from their proper signification to one entirely different, although it might be obvious that the words used, either through ignorance or inadvertence, expressed a very different meaning from that intended. Thus, if a contract spoke of "horses," it would not be possible for a court to read this word "oxen," although it might be made certain by extrinsic evidence that

(e) "The same intention must be collected from the same words of a contract in writing, whether with or without a seal." Per Lord Ellenborough, in Seddon v. Senate, 13 East, 74; Robertson v. French, 4 East, 130, 135; per Tindal, C. J., in Hargrave v. Smee, 3 Moore & P. 581; per Shaw, C. J., in Kane v. Hood, 13 Pick. 282.

(f) "Whenever" says Willes, C. J., in Parkhurst v. Smith, Willes, 332, "it is necessary to give an opinion upon the doubtful words of a deed, the first thing we ought to inquire into is, What was the intention of the parties? If the intent be as doubtful as the words, it will be of no assistance at all. But if the intent of the parties be plain and clear, we ought if possible to put such a construction on the doubtful words of the deed as will best answer the intention of the parties, and reject that construction which manifestly tends to overturn and destroy it I admit, that, though the intent of the parties be never so clear, it cannot take place contrary to the rules of law, nor can we put words in a deed which are not there, nor put a construction on the words of a deed directly contrary to the plain sense of them." it was so intended. (g) So if parties used in *a contract technical words of the law-merchant, such as average, or agio, or grace; these words could not be wrested from their customary and established meaning, on the ground that the parties used them in a sense which had never before been given to them. (h) But words will be interpreted with unusual extent of meaning, and held to be generic rather than specific, and thus made to cover things which are collateral rather than identical, if the certain meaning of the parties, and the obvious justice of the case, require this extent of signification. Thus, the word "men" will be interpreted to mean "mankind," and to include women; (i) and the word "bucks" has been construed to include "does;" and the word "horses " construed to mean "mares." (j) 1

(g) This is a rule which should be constantly borne in mind in putting a construction upon any legal instrument. It is admirably expounded by Lord Chief Baron Eyre, in the opinion delivered by him before the House of Lords in the great case of Gibson v. Minet, 1 H. Bl. 569, 614. One of the questions agitated in that case was, whether a bill of exchange drawn, payable to a fictitious payee, and purporting to be by him inorsed, could be construed as a bill payable to bearer. A majority of the judges who delivered opinions, argued in favor of such a construction, and urged, among other arguments, the case of deeds of conveyance, which are frequently made to operate in a manner different from what the parties intended. But the learned Chief Baron delivered a very powerful opinion against adopting the construction in question. After noticing the argument derived from deeds of conveyance, and urging that there was no analogy between them and bills of exchange, he continued: "But let it be supposed, for the sake of the argument, that there may be some analogy between deeds and bills of exchange; I ask, What are the instances in which construction and interpretation have taken so great a liberty with deeds, as to afford an argument by analogy for construing in this case a bill drawn payable to order to be a bill drawn payable to bearer? The instances which had occurred to me, as likely to be insisted upon, do in my apprehension afford no argument in favor of this position. A deed of feoffment upon consideration without livery may enure as a covenant to stand seised to the use of the intended feoffee. A deed importing to be a grant by two, one having a present, the other a future interest, may enure as the grant of the former, and the confirmation of the latter. A feoffment without livery operates nothing as a feoffment, is in truth no feoffment, but is a deed which under circumstances may operate as a covenant to stand seised to uses. Why? The feoffor has by the deed agreed to transfer the seisin and his right in the subject to the feoffee. If the consideration is a money consideration, or a consideration of blood, which is more valuable than money, the law raises out of the contract an use in favor of the intended feoffee. The seisin which remains in the feoffor, because the deed is insufficient to pass it, must remain in him, bound by the use. This is the effect of the feoffor's own agreement, plainly expressed upon the face of this deed. His agreement by his deed is in law a covenant, and by this simple process does his intended feoffment become, in construction of law, his covenant to stand seised to uses. It is a construction put upon the words of his deed, which his words will bear. So a deed importing a grant of an interest by two, one entitled in possession, the other in reversion, is, in consideration of law, the grant of the first and the confirmation of the second. Why? The deed imports to be the grant of a present estate by both, and it is the apparent intent of both that the grantee shall have the estate so granted; but the deed of the latter having no present interest to operate upon as a grant, nothing can pass by it as a grant. But this party has a future interest in the subject, out of which he may make good to the grantee the estate granted to him by the first grantor. This is to be done by a particular species of conveyance, called a confirmation. The words which are used in this deed, in their strict technical sense, are words of confirmation as much as they are words of grant. In the mouth of this party the law says, that they are words of confirmation, and shall enure as words of confirmation, in order to give effect to his deed, ui res magis valeat quam pereat. Here again the construction which the law puts upon the words of the deed is a construction which the words will bear. The words have several technical senses, of which this is one, and the law prefers this, because it carries into execution the clear intent of the parties, that the estate and interest conveyed by that deed shall pass. In both those cases we find words interpreted, not in their most general and obvious sense it is true; but if they are interpreted in a manner which the jus et forma loquendi in conveyances will warrant, there is nothing of violence in such construction. Indeed, I do not know how it would be possible to read a single page of history in any language, without using the same latitude of construction and interpretation of words. To go one step beyond these instances: I venture to lay it down as a general rule respecting the interpretation of deeds, that all latitude of construction must submit to this restriction, namely, that the words may bear the sense which by construction is put upon them. If we step beyond this line, we no longer construe men's deeds, but make deeds for them." And see Stratum v.