CERT MONEY. The head-money given by the tenants of several manors yearly to the lords, for the purpose of keeping up certain inferior courts. Called in the ancient ords certum lets; (feet money). Cowell.
Contracts. Distinctness and accuracy of statement.
A thing is certain when its essence, quality, and quantity are described, distinctly set forth, etc. Dig. 12, 1. 6. It is uncertain when the description is not that of an individual object, but designates only the kind. La. Civ. Code, art. 3522, no. 8; 5 Co. 121.
If a contract be so vague in its terms that its meaning cannot be certainly collected,. and the statute of frauds preclude the ad missibility of parol evidence to clear up the difficulty; 5 B. & C. 583; or parol evidence cannot supply the defect, then neither at law nor in equity can effect be given to it; 1 R. & M. 116. If it is impossible to ascer tain any definite meaning, such agreement is necessarily void; [1892] Q. B. 478. As to uncertainty of contract see Davie v. Min. Co., 93 Mich. 491, 53 N. W. 625, 24 L. R. A. 357; Van Schaick v. Van Buren, 70 Hun 575, 24 N. Y. Supp. 306.
It is a maxim of law that that is certain which may be made certain: id certum est quod certum reddi potest; Co. Litt. 43. For example, when a man sells the oil he has in his store at so much a gallon, although there is uncertainty as to the quantity of oil, yet, inasmuch as it can be ascertained, the max im applies, and the sale is good. See, gen erally, Story, Eq. § 240; Mitt Eq. Pl., Jere my ed. 41.
In Pleading. Such clearness and distinct ness of statement of the facts which consti tute the cause of action or ground of de fence that they may be understood by the party who is to answer them, by the jury who are to ascertain the truth of the allega tions, and by the court who are to give the judgment. 2 B. & P. 267; Co. Litt 303; Com. Dig. Pleader. See Giroux Amalgama tor Co. v. White, 21 Or. 435, 28 Pac. 390.
Certainty to a common intent is attained by a form of statement in which words are used in their ordinary meaning, though by argument or inference they may he made to bear a different one. See 2 H. Bla. 530; Andr. Steph. Pl. 384.
Certainty to a certain intent in general is attained when the meaning of the statute may be understood upon a fair and reason able construction without recurrence to pos sible facts which do not appear; 1 Wms.
Saund. 49; Spencer v. Southwick, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 317; Fuller v. Hampton, 5 Conn. 423.
Certainty to a certain intent vn particular is attained by that technical accuracy of statement which precludes all argument, in ference, and presumption against the party pleading. When this certainty is required, the party must not only state the facts of his case in the most precise way, but add to them such as show that they are not to be controverted, and, as it were, anticipate the case of his adversary ; Lawes, Pl. 54.
The last description of certainty is re quired in estoppels ; Co. Litt. 303 ; 2 H. Bla. 530 ; Dougl. 159; and in pleas which are not favored in law, as alien enemy ; 8 Term 167 ; Russel v. Skipwith, 6 Binn (Pa.) 247. See Clarke v. Morey, 10 Johns. (N. Y.)•70. With respect to an indictment, it is laid down that "an indictment ought to be certain to every intent, and without any intendment to the contrary ;" Cro. Eliz. 490; and the charge contained in it must be sufficiently explicit to support itself ; for no latitude of inten tion can be allowed to include anything more than is expressed ; 2 Burr. 1127; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588; U. S. v. Simmons, 96 U. S. 360, 24 L. Ed. 819; State v. Stiles, 40 Ia. 148; State v. Philbrick, 31 !de. 401; Com. v. Terry, 114 Mass. 263; State' v.- Fancher, 71 Mo. 460; State v. Mes sengbr, 58 N. H. 348.
These definitions, which have been adopt ed from Coke, have been subjected to severe but are of some utility in draw ng attention to the different degrees of ex actness and fulness of statement required in different instances. Less certainty is requir ed where the law presumes that the knowl edge of the facts is peculiarly in the opposite party ; 8 East 85 ; 13 id. 112; 3 Maule & S. 14 ; People v. Dunlap, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 437.
Less certainty than would otherwise be requisite is demanded in some cases, to avoid prolixity of statement; 2 Wms. Saund. 117, n. 1. See, generally, 1 Chit. Pl.