Mallan v May
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1844 |
| Date | 25 November 1844 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 213
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 14 L. J. Ex. 48; 9 Jur. 19. See 11 M. & W. 653. Referred to, Bruner v. Moore, [1904] 1 Ch. 305. Discussed, Cave v. Horsell, [1912] 3 K. B. 537.
[511] mallan v. ma.y. Nov. 25, 1844.-In construing intruments, the words are to be construed according to their strict and primary acceptation, unless from the context of the instrument, and the intention of the parties to be collected from it, they appear to be used in a different sense, or unless iu their strict sense they are incapable of being carried into effect; subject, however, to this, that the meaning of a particular word may be shewn, by parol evidence, to be different in some particular place, trade, or business, from its proper and ordinary signification.-By articles of agreement between A., described as "of Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury-sqnare, in the county of Middlesex," of the one part, and B., of &c., of the second part, the former agreed to instruct the latter in the business of a surgeon-dentist for a term of four years, and it was stipulated that B. should not, without the consent of A., carry on the business of a surgeon-dentist " in London, or any of the towns or places in England or Scotland" where A. may have been practising before the expiration of the said term:- Held, that, in its strict and proper meaning, the word " London " meant the city of London, in which sense it ought to be understood, as there was nothing in the context to prevent its being construed in its proper sense : and that a statement in the ease, that "London" had a popular or colloquial sense, in which Great Russell-street would be understood to be within its limits, was not sufficient for the purpose of causing a different construction to be put upon that word in the instrument. [S. C. 14 L. J. Ex. 48; 9 Jur. 19. See 11 M. & W. 653. Referred to, Eruner v. Moore, [1904] I Ch. 305. Discussed, Cave v. Hitrsdl, [1912] 3 K. B. 537.] .Special case. In the month of June, 1842, the plaintiffs filed a bill in Chancery against the defendant, praying, amongst other things, that the defendant might be restrained from either directly or indirectly (without the consent in writing of the plaintiff's) carrying on, or being concerned as principal or assistant or agent, or in any other capacity, in the profession of a surgeon-dentist, or any branch thereof, in " London," or any of the towns or places in England or Scotland where the plaintiffs, or, the said defendant on their account, might have been practising before the expiration of the term oE four years mentioned in certain articles of agreement, which are as follows, and which were respectively sealed by the said pltiintiffs and the said defendant:- "Articles of agreement made and entered into this 28th day of December, 1835, between Edward Mallan and James Mallan, of No. 32 Great Russell street, Bloomsbury-square, in the county of Middlesex, surgeon-dentists, of the one part, and Leon May, of No, 101 Princess-street, Edinburgh, in the kingdom of Scotland, of the second part. " Whereas the said parties hereto have agreed to enter into such contract as hereinafter contained : Now these presents witness, that it is hereby mutually agreed upd declared by and between the said parties hereto, and eaeh respectively doth hereby, for himself, his heirs, executors, [512] and administrators, covenant, promise, and agree to and with each other of them, his heirs, executors, and administrators, in manner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Associated Northern Collieries
- Hamilton v Lethbridge
-
The Belfast Dock Act, 1854, and The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. v ex parte The Earl of Ranfurly
...6 Cl. & Fin. 628. Earl of Murray v. The Duke of Gordon Morrison, 12, 797. Dalglish v. The Duke of AtholENR 5 Dow. 282. Mallan v. MayENR 13 M. & W. 511. Nash v. BirchENR 1 M. & W. 402. The Duke of Devonshire v. The Corporation of YoughalUNK Cited 12 Ir. L. R. 196. The Duke of Devonshire v. S......
-
AIB Group (UK) Ltd v Martin and Another
...this rule may lead to the actual intention of the parties being defeated but the rule is applied to ensure certainty in legal affairs. In Mallan v May (1844) 13 M & W 511, 517 Pollock CB stated: "We must apply the ordinary rules of construction to this instrument; and though, by so doing, w......