Punctuation

Compare Grammar. When the meaning of a clause in an instrument is doubtful, the cpnrt may insert punctuation to show of what constniction the words are capable; and if by such a Sd the com-t is enabled to see that the language can bear an interpretation which will make the whole instrument rational and self-consistent, it is bound to adopt that interpretation, in preference to another Field. J.; Grisaru Mc Dowell, 6 Wall. 372 (1867); More V. Steinbach, 127 U. S, 70, 78 C1888), cases. ' Trenouth v. San Francisco, ante.

2 Townsend v. Greeley, 5 Wall. 336 (1866), Field, J. 3 Palmer v. Low, 98 U. S. 16 (1878), Waite, C. J.; San Francisco v. Scott, 111 id.

768 (1884). which would attribute to the parties an intention utterly capricious, insensible and absurd.^ In the interpretation of written instruments veiy little consideration is given by the courts to the punctuation, and it is never allowed to interfere with or control the meaning of the language used. The words must be given their common and natural effect regardless of the punctuation or grammatical construction." When the punctuation is strictly consistent with one or two senses, equally grammatical, and inconsistent with the other, it should be allowed the force of opening the question of construction to receiving aid from the context, and from the purpose in view.'*