Majority
Headnote
Where a document attested by a subscribing witness has without objection been . proved by secondary evidence in an examination of a witness conditionally, it is too late upon the trial to object to its being read from the deposition. Where the owner of a ship has by parol agreed to sell an interest in her to his captain, but had never' conveyed the title to him, the captain is not a necessary party in an action commenced by attachment against a charterer for freight carried on the charter party.The defendants’ objection to the reading of the charter party was not well taken. The evidence of Webster had been taken conditionally, and the execution of the charter party was then proved without any objection being interposed. It was therefore too late to make one uoon the trial. (2 Cow. & Hill’s Notes, 558, 1213.)
The defendants insist that this is not a valid bond, for the reason that the statute requires the bond to be executed by the debtor or his agent, with such sureties as shall be approved by the officer, and that this bond has but one surety. An omission to procure more than one surety does not invalidate it. (Johnson v. Lasene, 2 Ld. Ray. 1459; Mitchell v. Thorp, 5 Wend. 287 .)
The more important question remains, the determination of which depends upon the construction to be put upon the clause in the charter party, by which the plaintiff was to receive for the freight of the coals “ four dollars per chaldron, Pictou mines measure of 30 cwt.” The" plaintiff insists that the price was thereby fixed at four dollars for each chaldron, Picton mines measure, defined to be one of thirty hundred weight. The defendants contend that four dollars was to be paid for each chaldron according to the Pictou mines” measurement, without "reference to its weight. ' Their construction would make the expression of “ 30 cwt.” of no significance whatever. I think it can not be put upon the contract without doing violence to the plainest rules of interpretation and the manifest intent of the parties. If possible, effect must be given to every expression in the contract. (Chitty on Contracts, 70.) This rule is carried so far, that it is said to be the duty of courts to give to all doubtful words or expressions such an interpretation as will make them produce some effect. (Smith on the Cons, of Stat. § 527.) The defendants’ construction would require a disregard of the rule without any satisfac
Rugóles, Ch. J., Morse, Taggart and Willard, JJ., concurred with Judge Mason.
Gardiner, Jéwett and Johnson, JJ., were in favor of a reversal of the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases cited
- Alsop v. Caines 10 Johns. 396 p. 446
- Clarkson v. Carter 3 Cow. 84 p. 446
- Mitchell v. Thorp 5 Wend. 287 p. 446