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 A provision in a lease to the effect that the premises are to be used "for a saloon," may be shown by the context and the remaining provisions of the contract to mean a saloon for the sale of intoxicating liquors.4 The use of the word "give" is not of itself conclusive to show that the promise was without consideration, and the context may show that the word "give" meant pay or deliver.5 The context may show whether the word "taxes" includes assessments for local improvement or not.6 A covenant in a bond issued by a corporation, by which the corporation agrees to pay principal and interest "without any deduction made for or in respect of any taxes, charges or assessments whatsoever," 7 or "without any deduction from either such principal or interest for any tax or taxes which" the corporation "may be required to repay or retain therefrom, under any present or future law," the corporation "agreeing to pay such tax or taxes,"8 has been held not to impose upon the corporation the duty of paying the federal income tax, on the theory that the income tax is not a tax upon the bond or the interest thereon.9 It is also urged that the result of the exemptions in the income tax law and of the progressive rate of taxation, makes the amount of tax different for different individuals, according to their wealth.10 This last reason would, of course, vanish entirely if no exemptions were allowed and if the individual tax was levied at a flat rate. The result seems to be justified only by very technical construction. If the ordinary rule of construction is to determine the intention of the parties as the average reasonable man would understand such intention from the language used,11 it has not been applied in cases of this sort. 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.12

Oregon. Interior Warehouse Co. v. Dunn, 80 Or. 528, 157 Pac. 806.

Utah. Daly v. Old, 35 Utah 74, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 463, 99 Pac. 460; Board of Education v. Wright-Osborn Co., 49 Utah 453, 164 Pac. 1033.

Virginia. Roanoke v. Blair, 107 Va. 639, 60 S. E. 75.

Washington. State v. Seattle Electric Co., 71 Wash. 213, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 172, 128 Pac. 220.

West Virginia. Carnegie Natural Gas Co. v. South Penn. Oil Co., 56 W. Va. 402, 49 S. E. 548; Hall v. Philadelphia Co., 72 W. Va. 573, 78 S. E. 755.

Wisconsin. Lathers v. Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 135 Wis. 431, 116 N. W. 1.

2 Brush, etc., Co. v. Montgomery, 114 Ala. 433, 21 So. 960; Warrum v. White, 171 Ind. 574, 86 N. E. 959; Simmons v. Groom, 167 N. Car. 271, 83 S. E. 471. See $2025.

3 Atlantic & North Carolina Ry. Co. v. Atlantic & North Carolina Co., 147 N. Car. 368, 125 Am. St. Rep. 550, 23

L. R. A. (N.S.) 223, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 363, 61 S. E. 185. See Sec. 2027 et seq.

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

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

6 Guie v. Byers, 95 Wash. 492, 164 Pac. 75.

7 Guie v. Byers, 95 Wash. 492, 164 Pac. 75.

8 Candler v. Georgia Theater Co., 148 Ga. 188, L. R. A. 1918F, 389, 96 S. E. 226.

9Cutler v. Spens, 191 Mich. 603, 168 N. W. 224; De Bergere v. Chaves, 14 N. M. 352, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 50, 93 Pac. 762.

10 De Bergere v. Chaves, 14 N. M. 352, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 50, 93 Pac. 762.

11 Candler v. Georgia Theater Co., 148 Ga. 188, L. R. A. 1918F, 389, 96 S. E. 226.

1 United States. Hull, etc, Co. v. Coke Co., 113 Fed. 256, 51 C. C. A. 213.

Alabama. Little Cahaba Coal Co. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 192 Ala. 42, 68 So. 317.

Colorado. Fearnley v. Fearnley, 44 Colo. 417, 98 Pac. 819.

Illinois. Costello v. Delano, 274 III. 426, 113 N. E. 689.

Iowa. Jochimsen v. Johnson, 173 la. 553, 156 N. W. 21.

Kansas. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. v. Kansas City Northwestern R. Co., 75 Kan. 167, 88 Pac. 1085.

Louisiana. St. Landry State Bank v. Meyers. 52 La. Ann. 1769, 28 So. 136.

Minnesota. Halloran v. Schmidt Brewing Co., 137 Minn. 141, L. R. A. 1917E. 777, 162 N. W. 1082.

New Jersey. Thompson v. Trenton Water Power Co., 77 N. J. L. 672, 73 Atl. 410.

New York. First National Bank v. Jones, 219 N. Y. 312, 114 N. E. 349.

North Carolina. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co. v. Atlantic & N. C. Co., 147 N. Car. 368, 125 Am. St. Rep. 550, 61 S. E. 185; Simmons v. Groom, 167 N. Car. 271, 83 S. E. 471.

Pennsylvania. Lehigh, etc., Coal Co. v. Wright, 177 Pa. St. 387, 35 Atl. 919.

Wisconsin. 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 Columbus Construction Co. v. Crane Co., 98 Fed. 94(5, 40 C. C. A. 35.

4 Halloran v. Schmidt Brewing Co., 137 Minn. 141, L. R. A. 1917E, 777, 162 N. W. 1082.

5Fearnley v. Fearnley, 44 Colo. 417, 98 Pac. 819.

6 Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. v. Kansas City Northwestern R. Co., 75 Kan. 167, 88 Pac. 1085.

7 Haight v. Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne & Chicago Ry., 73 U. S. (6 Wall.) 15, 18 L. ed. 818.

8 Urquhart v. Marion Hotel Co., 128 Ark. 283, L. R. A. 1917F, 203, 194 S. W. 1.