The great object and purpose of the interpretation and construction of contracts is to ascertain and carry out the intention of the parties to the contract. The duty of the Court is to enforce the contract as made by the parties thereto, and not to make a new contract for the parties.2

1 American and English Enc. of

Law, Vol. 17, p. 2. 2 Ford vs. Beech, 112 B., 852;

Chesapeake, etc., Canal Co. vs. Hill, 15 Wall, 94; Steele vs. Branch, 40 Cal., 3; Brown vs. Slater, 16 Conn., 192.

In William Cramp, etc., Ship, etc., Bldg. Co. vs. Sloan,3 the Court said on this point: "The greatest doubt as to the correctness of the rulings at the trial has arisen upon that part of the instructions to the jury to the effect that, if both parties did not mutually understand that the building of the ship was to be proceeded with for the defendants, upon their contract to take and pay for them, still if the defendants gave the officers of the plaintiff, who transacted the business, fairly to understand, as prudent men in the transaction of such business, that the plaintiff might go on and build the ships for them, and they would take them at the agreed price, the defendants would be bound. This was not intended to trench upon the necessity of a meeting of the minds of the parties to make a contract. The price and kind of ships was fully agreed upon. The question was whether the contract should be proceeded with. The plaintiff could only act upon what the defendants fairly gave its officers and agents to understand. If there was any miscarriage in expressing the mind of the defendants it would seem to be just that they should be bound by what they fairly expressed, whether they intended it as they expressed it or not.4 As, if they had told the plaintiff to build two ships, when they intended to say, and understood that they said, to build one, it would seem to be clear that they would be holden for the two. And if they told the plaintiff to go on and build the ships, it would seem to be equally clear that they would be bound, although they did not understand that they told the plaintiffs so."

3 21 Fed. Rep., 861.

4 Poth Obl 19; Story Cent., Sec.

86; Adams vs. Lindsell, 1 Barn. & Ald., 681.