 | New York (State). Commissioners of the Code - 1862 - 550 Seiten
...Cont., §§ 635, 636, 660. § 598. In case of uncertainty not removed by the preceding rules, language should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist.1 whom. 'Code La., 1952. 1953. See Harper v. NY City Ins. Co., 22 NT, 441 ; Marvin t>. Stone,... | |
 | New York (State). Commissioners of the Code, New York (State). - 1865 - 896 Seiten
...against the party who caused whomthe uncertainty to exist.2 The proiniser is presumed to be such party ;3 except in a contract between a public officer or body,...party, in which it is presumed that all uncertainty was caused by the private party.4 1 This rule is to be resorted to only when all others fail (Hargreave... | |
 | California, California. Commission to Revise the Laws of California - 1871 - 894 Seiten
...taken most stipulation when implied . NcroHHary incidents implied. NYCC, Sec. 818. SEC. 1(554. In cases of uncertainty not removed by the preceding rules,...the party who caused the uncertainty to exist. The promiser is presumed to be such party; except in a contract between a public officer or body, as such,... | |
 | 1901 - 1148 Seiten
...believed at the time of maJiing it that the promisee understood it." Section 1654 déchires: "In case of uncertainty not removed by the preceding rules,...exist. The promisor is presumed to be such party." In furtherance of this presumption, it is here positively shown that the promisor himself drew the... | |
 | 1915 - 1200 Seiten
...and neither Ruffin, nor any legal advisor of his, had anything to do with its preparation. "In cases of uncertainty not removed by the preceding rules,...against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist." Section 1654, Civil Code; Lassing v. James, 107 Gal. 348, 40 Рас, 534. [3, 4] Second, it must be... | |
 | 1910 - 1172 Seiten
...favor of the grantee, and section 1054 providing that, in cases of uncertainty not removed by certain rules, the language of a contract should be interpreted...against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. Dig. §§ 310, 331 ; Dec. Dig. § 114.*] 2. HUSBAND... | |
 | 1917 - 1228 Seiten
...the other consideration suggested by appellants that, if there be any uncertainty in the language, it should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist, that is, the contractor, who fits the position both of promisor and the person who prepared the contract.... | |
 | New York (State). - 1885 - 422 Seiten
...inconsistwith its nature, or with the main intention of the parties, are to be rejected. § 1069 In cases of uncertainty not removed by the preceding rules,...the party who caused the uncertainty to exist. The promiser is presumed to be such party ; except in a contract between a public officer or body, as such,... | |
 | David Belden - 1891 - 488 Seiten
...employmentIn such a case, saya our code : " In cases of uncertainty not removed by the preceding rule, the language of a contract should be interpreted most...exist. The promisor is presumed to be such party." — Sec. 10Г>4, Civil Code. This section, though specially applicable to written contracts, furnishes... | |
 | James Henry Deering - 1896 - 584 Seiten
...explained by reference to the circumstances under which It was made, and In case of uncertainty in to be Interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist. (Yoch v. Home Mutual Ins. Co.. Ill Cal. 503.) Life Insurance policy construed most eirongly against... | |
| |
In cases of uncertainty not removed by the preceding rules, the language of a contract should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist. 
