The context and subject-matter may affect the meaning to be given to the words of a contract,1 especially if in connection with the subject-matter the ordinary meaning of the term would give an absurd result.2 The subject-matter of a contract to lay pipe for gas may be invoked to aid in determining the meaning of "light" pipe.3 So under a contract for the sale of a coal business in a certain township, a covenant not to engage in such business for five years, will be construed to mean to engage in such business in such township.4

1 Fitzgerald v. Bank, 114 Fed. 474; 52 C. C. A. 276; Francis Bros. v. Boiler Co., 112 Fed. 899; Missouri, etc., Co. v. Bry, 88 Mo. App. 135; Moore v. Ins. Co., 62 N. H. 240; 13 Am. St. Rep. 556; Methodist, etc., Society v. Water Co., 20 Ohio C. C. 578; 10 Ohio C. D. 648.

2 Brush, etc., Co. v. Montgomery, 114 Ala. 433; 21 So. 960.

3 Kohl v. Frederick, 115 Ia. 517; 88 N. W. 1055.

4 Ullman v. Ry., 112 Wis. 150; 88 Am. St. Rep. 949; 56 L. R. A. 246; 88 N. W. 41; (construction of "accident").

1 Hull, etc., Co. v. Coke Co., 113 Fed. 256; 51 C. C. A. 213; St. Landry State Bank v. Meyers, 52 La. Ann. 1769; 28 So. 136; Lehigh, etc., Coal Co. v. Wright, 177 Pa. St. 387; 35 Atl. 919; Ullman v. Ry., 112 Wis. 150; 88 Am. St. Rep. 949; 56 L. R. A. 246; 88 N. W. 41.

2 Pendleton v. Saunders, 19 Or. 9; 24 Pac. 506; Kentzler v. Accident Association, 88 Wis. 589; 43 Am. St. Rep. 934; 60 N. W. 1002.

3 Columhus Construction Co. v. Crane Co., 98 Fed. 946; 40 C. C. A. 35.