The contract being construed as a whole, it follows that one part of it may affect the construction of a different part.1 An illustration of this is found where the contract as a whole shows a given intention, but certain words or phrases if taken literally will defeat such intention. In such case the particular words or phrases will, if possible, be construed in such a way as to be consistent with the general intention.2

4 united States. Hervey v. Locomotive Works, 93 U. S. 664, 23 L. ed. 1003; Herryford v. Davis, 102 U. S. 235, 244. 26 L. ed. 160.

California. Stockton Savings Society v. Purvis, 112 Cal. 236, 53 Am. St. Rep. 210, 44 Pac. 561.

Mississippi. Dederick v. Wolfe, 68 Miss. 500, 24 Am. St. Rep. 283, 9 So. 350.

Missouri. Simpson v. Van Laning-ham, 267 Mo. 286, 183 S. W. 324.

Tennessee. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Cole, 72 Tenn. (4 Lea) 439, 40 Am. Rep. 20; Cowan v. Mfg. Co., 92 Tenn. 376, 21 S. W. 663; Arbuckle v. Kirkpatrick, 98 Tenn. 221, 60 Am.. St. Rep. 854, 36 L. R. A. 285, 39 S. W. 3.

5 Simpson v. Van Laningham, 267 Mo. 286, 183 S. W. 324.

6 Arbuckle v. Kirkpatrick. 98 Tenn. 221, 60 Am. St. Rep. 854, 36 L. R. A. 285, 39 S. W. 3.

7 Fidelity, etc.. Co. v. R. R., 86 Va. 1, 19 Am. St. Rep. 858, 9 S. E. 759.

8 Lancaster Mills v. Cotton Press Co., 89 Tenn. 1, 24 Am. St. Rep. 586, 14 S. W. 317.

9 Burlington University v. Barrett,

22 Ia. 60, 92 Am. Dec. 376; Lauck v. Logan, 45 W. Va. 251, 31 S. E. 986.

The use of the term "quit-claim" and language appropriate to a quitclaim deed is not conclusive. Cook v. Smith, 107 Tex. 110, 3 A. L. R. 040, 174 S. W. 1094.

1 United States. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Co. v. Hill, 82 U. S. (15 Wall.) 94, 21 L. ed. 64; A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Mayflower Gold Mining & Reduction Co., 173 Fed. 855, 97 C. C. A. 465, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1.

California. Todd v. Superior Court, - Cal. - , 184 Pac. 684.

Florida. Pensacola Gas Co. v. Lots©,

23 Fla. 368, 2 So. 609

Minnesota. Lindley v. Groff, 37 Minn. 338, 34 N. W. 26.

Mississippi Isler v. Isler, 110 Miss. 419. 70 So. 455.