INA, DEEP WELL, DRILLING, €O, Action for Return of Machinery, Cousrt; Mr, FI. Hartopp appearing for Mr. ie."E, Newman, cor' Plains {ifts; Nir, John MeNell, Defendants, Bojore Judye P. Grant Jones judgment with Coste for Defendant) construction of the agreement" Judgimant with costs must be tutored for the defendants, to whose counsel "I any particularly indebted for "ho thorough and. accurate. pre-Paration of Unit complicated case for Male" Judge P. Grant Jones said on. November 0<In 1, Supreme Court atthe conclusion of a, weir fen judgment which took uhveo-Auariers"of an hour" to read. The rzment settled Nie action brought the China Well Drilling Corparathan againat he Ginn Boop Well Dung' Cow Ltd, The defendants
MeNeit; cand: the. plaints," during were aprasontod by Mr. John me nearing of the' action," by" INF. Kg: Newman, In court on Nov. 29
January 18 and was. initialled by Malcolm and Eardley, but it omitted the values which had been assigned by the latter to the various items in the inventory probably because the sale was for a lump sum which covered plant, equipment, goodwill and contracts,' I am not entitled to take into consideration the negotiations which preceded the conclusion of the agreement but evidence of those negotiations was introduced at the hearing and that evidence showed, to my mind, that the purchase price was not based, as alleged in the statement of claim, on the Inventory of January 18; the words "at the Toast" in the sentence "It is understood that the drilling and other plant....are of the value. of Tis, 80,428.04" at the least" in Mr. Mal-colin's letter of January 29 to the corporation appear to me to preclude such an interpretation of the agreement, Taking over of Company On completion the defendant company took over the corporation's engineers, including Eardley, and their staff generally; and in pursuance of the agreement the corporation notified its agents in Delaware on May 27, 1930, that it had sold all its to be construed as at the tine of fits execution." (ibid. p. 265), "No extrinsic evidence," said Parke, B, in Shore v. Wilson, (1842), "of the intention of the party to the deed from his declarations, whether fat the time of his executing the instrument or before or after that time, is admissible; the duty of the Court being to declare the meaning of what is written in the Instrument, hol of what was intended. to have been written." And Lord Blackburn River Wear Commissioners". Adamson, (1877), 2 App. Cas. 743, said: *I'shall state as precisely as 1 can what T understand from the decided cases to be the principles on which the courts of aw act in construing instruments in' writing. In all eases the object is to see what Is the intention expressed by the words used. But from the imperfection of language it is impossible to. know What that intention is without inquiring further and seeing what the circumstances were with reference fo which the words were used and What was the object appearing from those circumstances which the person using them had in views. for the meaning of words varies according to the circumstances with respect to which they were used.... In the ease of a contract the two parties are speaking of certain things only id therefore the admissible evidence.
limited to those circumstances of However. Mr B. Lo Hartopp "apassets and gone out of business. The and concerning which they use these peated on behalf of Me. Newman, corporation In fact allowed its char~ words. 'The court does not make a Whois away' at present. for to lapse for non-payment of taxes, will or a contract such as it thinks Judge P. Grant Jones, in Mis Jude and has not carried on any business the testator or the parties wished to ment said: since then. By S, 73, however, of make, but declares what the inten-'This isan ection in detinue for the the Generat Corporation Law of the tion indicated by the words used return of machinery plant equip
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.