Margarine Works, (1922, 2 KB. 185) a charter-party contained the clause "Should the vessel be detained causes over which the charterers have hho control, viz. quarantine, ice, hi ricanes, blockade, clearing of _the steamer after the last cargo is taken over, etc, no demurrage is to be charged." " The Court of Appeal held] that there was difficulty in applying the ciusdem genesis rule where the specific words were preceded by the Reneral words, that' the governing words of the whole clause were "causes over which the charterers had control," that a strike clearly came within that exception and the defendants were exonerated from' ability. I take the following passage from the judgment of Younger, LI. as illuminative on the whole question: "Is that exception, in the eltcumstances found by' the learned orbitrator, so phrased as to release the charterers from liability for the delay in unloading due to that general strike? If the words of the exception had been the words of a will oF a conveyance, the answer to that question, on principles well aseertainced in the construction of such instruments, would, T think, have been clear." A gift, for instance, of residue expressed in general terms, followed by an enumeration of various parti culars concluding with "et cotoro'" is so phrased as to restrict the meaning or effect of the general words. That statement will be found Jarman on Wills, 6th ed., 1. 1030, "The subsequent enumeration," says Sit John "Romilly in. Gover". Davis (1860) 29 Beav. 222, 224, "was merely tended to show that' the general statement was to extend to and. include them, and then it goes on with the words, if properly speaking they can be called: words, ele, ele,' the proper interpretation of which is, and all other things." "Such an enumeration," says Sir William Grant. in Cambridge v, Rows (1802) 8 Ves. 12, 26, "under a "videlicet," much more restrictive expression, has been held only a defective enumeration, nol a restriction to the specific articles." "It Is on those who. contend for limited construction," says. Knight Bruce VC in Parker v. Marchant (1842) 1°Y, & C. Eh. 300, "to show that ara departure from ly and prima facie ix the sense and meaning of the words, The effect attributed to the general words in these cases Is explained. another way by Wood V.-C, In Dean Gibson 1807) Lo. Ro 3 Eq. 713, where he observes "that there is a strong presumption that a testatrix docs not, by using general words followed by a speeitie enumeration, intend only to do that which she might have effectually done by the specific enumeration alone. And the same rie of construction as applied to the parcels In a conveyance is very elenrly. sot forth in the following passage from Dakin's Case 2 Wins which Sir John Simon called at. tention in his argument: "For the ral and proper use of a videticet, says Lord Hobart, 1 to particularize that which is general before, and to that which Is indifferent, oF obscure: but it must neither be contrary to the promises, nor increase nor diminish the pre: cedent matier; and therefore if a man seized in fee of Blackaere, Whiteaere and Greenaere in D., should grant all his inds in D, that ix "to say, Blackacre and" Whiteacre, yet Greenacre shall also pass by ihe grant; but if lands lying out of D. are added under the scilicet, they will hot pass... These authorities "(and they mizht be indetnitely multiplied demonstrate, 1 think, that if the form expression with which we ate now concerned had been used to make xift in a will, or to describe parcels conveyance, there could be no doubt as to its proper interpretation, And it will be observed that, x0 far, have been in no way concerned with the application of the ejusdem genesis rule of construction, That tule ix not, up to this point, under discussion, "These authorities are dlnee which, as 2 matter of construction, should eral. expression, such as we have in this charterparly, note withstanding the addition of subse quently particul "These cus Mr. Jarman, indicate the disposition of the judges of the present day' to adhere fo the sound rule, which gives to words of a comprehensive import their full extent of operation, untos. some very distinct ground can de collected from the context for considering ther fas used in a special and. restricted The Governing Words On these canons of construction enunciated and illustrated in the authorities and cases cited, T have no dimeulty in coming to the conclusion that the general words in the first clause of the agreement were the governing, words of the contract and effect of them was 10 pass fu its tively the properly of the plainti corporation in its machinery plant equipment and accessories to the defendant company. The words "a list of which machinery plant equipment and accessories has already been prepared" relate back, in my opinion, to immediately preceding words "all und singular the well drilling and other machinery plant and equipment of the corporation whatsoever and wheresoever and all secessories be= tonging thereto," and are to be yead them as equivalent to "a list of all which machinery' plant equipment and accessories whatsoever and wheresoever has already been Prepared." Otherwise the word "wheresoever" was surely redundant; for were only the articles listed, Uke the contracts specified, intended to ass under the agreement, it would
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.