May

Though primarily importing permission, is often used, in construing statutes, in the sense of " shall " or " must." Where public interest or private right requires that a thing should be done, " may " is construed to mean "must." I Equivalent to "must " or "shall " when important rights of an accused person depend upon it, and when the context and general purpose of a statute require it.' Construed "must " in all cases where the legislature meant to impose, a positive and absolute duty, and not merely a discretionary power. The ordinaiy meaning of the language must be presumed intended, unless that would defeat the object of the provision.^ But it is only where it is necessary to give effect to the clear policy and intention of the legislature that suchliberty can be taken with the plain words of statutes.* When power is given to public of Scers, and the public interest or individual rights call for its exercise, the language used, though permissive in form, is' in fact peremptory.^ See Kequibe. May be. The expression, in a statute, that " the county court in which any part of the route of the said railroad may be," may subscribe to the stock, is to be construed with reference to the situation of the subject-matter. Used of a railroad already built, "maybe "would be equivalent to "exists," "is built," "in operation," or the like. But referring to a road not yet built, not located or surveyed, nor organized, it must have a different meaning." May have. Possessions that a testator "may have " do not necessarily refer to future time.' "May have" and "may have been" are presumably retrospective.

8 ' People V. Supervisors, 68 N. T. 119 (1877); People v. Supervisors, 51 id. 406-7 (1873), cases. estate V. Neuner, 49 Conn. 233 (1881), cases; Commonwealth V. Smith, 111 Mass. 407 (1873). ' Thompson v. Lessee of Carroll, 22 How. 434 (1859), Grier, J. ' Minor v. Mechanics' Bank, 1 Pet. 64 (1828), Story, J. ' Supervisors v. United States, 4 Jf all. 446^7 (1866), cases, Swayne, J.; Jones v. Statesville, 97 N. C. 86 (1887). See also Leighton v. Maxay, 76 Va. -870 (1882); Exp. Lester, 77 id. 673(1883); 9 rfow. 269; 5 Wall. 705; 95U. S. 170; 17 F. E. 814; 2 Flip. 373; 7 Ct. CI. 334; 12 Ala. 693; 28 id. 28; 45 Cal. 696; 70 111. 690; 77 id. 373; 7 Ind. 122; 18 id. 27; 53 Me. 438; 61 id. 566; 107 Mass. 197; 125 id. 201; 141 id. 104; 11 Minn. 101; 35 id. 186; 39 Mo. 521; 48 id. 167, 390; 3 Neb. 224; 4 id. 150; 11 Nev. 260; 39 N. H. 485; 27 N. J. L. 407; 24 N. Y. 495; 62 id. 27; 91 id. 637; 81 Pa. 349; 8 Phila. 625; 1 Wash. T. 51; 9 Wis. 309; 36 id. 498; 64 id. 347; 73 E. C. L. 755. » County of Calloway v. Foster, 93 U. S. 573 (1876). ' Wilkinson v. Adam, 1 Ves. & B. *443 (1812).

May in anywise. Not always the same as " may by any possibility," or "may under any circumstances." ' May or may not give. Where a statute provides that for willful neglect, punitive damages may or may not be given in the discretion of the jury, it is error to instruct a jmy that they " should " give punitive damages if they found willful neglect." But an erroneous instruction that if the defendant was guilty of willful neglect the jury "ought" to award punitive damages, is not cured by another instruction that they " co^ld " find any sum as punitive May pay. In an agreement for re-insurance, may mean " liable to pay." ' May receive. An agreement to credit on a note any amount the payee may receive, may refer to money thereafter received.* May saw. An agreement to sell all the plank one may saw during a winter was held not to bind the defendant to saw any plank at all." " May summon " the master of a vessel to show cause why process should not issue against the vessel,' means shall be at liberty, is permitted, to summon him.'