...of all. In the words and language employed; and If the words are fre» from ambiguity and doubt, and express plainly, clearly, and distinctly the sense...instrument, there is no occasion to resort to other means of interpretaHon. It 'is not allowable to Interpret what ban no need of interpretation." Suth. St. Const...

...there can be no question as to the meaning of the words used, there is no room for construction ; that it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation, and to attempt to do so would be to exercise legislative functions, saying there is no safer or better...

...department may have been or how long continued, for it can only be resorted to in aid of interpretation, and it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation ; if there were ambiguity or doubt, then such a practice begun so early and continued so long would...

...the word " all " — " all bridge structures," that this must include the bridge in question; that it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. It must be admitted that this bridge comus within the letter of the statute, but it is not within its...

...meaning of constitutions arid laws, answer these questions. Among those rules are the following : a. It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. b. The intent of the law-making power must be upheld and enforced. , c. The previous condition of the...

...provision." — (United States v. Temple, 105 US 99.) Vattel's first general maxim of interpretation is that 'it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation,' and he continues: "When a deed is worded in clear and precise terms — when its meaning is evident and...

...hir.,nc Pac., Kook 2, Ch. 10; Hall, Int. L. 281. " The first general nraxim of interpretation is, That it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. When a deed is worded in clear and precise terms, when its meaning is evident and leads to no absurd...

...of all in the words and language employed ; and if the words are free from ambiguity and doubt, and express plainly, clearly and distinctly the sense...to interpret what has no need of interpretation." 4 The statute itself furnishes the best iCearfoss v. State, 42 Md. 403, 406. v. Love, 24 Miss. 249;...

...room is left for •construction. Sedgwick, in his work on " Statutory and Constitutional Law," says : It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. When we see the sense that agrees with the intention of the instrument, it is not allowable to wrest...

...shall be made which is opposed to the express words of the instrument": Broom's Legal Maxims, 619. "It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation": Co. Lit. 147 a; Lanyon v. Crane, 2 Saund. 167. The averment in the answer is one defeating the operation...