PUNCTUATION. The division of a writ ten or printed instrument by means of points, such as the comma, semicolon, and the like.
Courts of law in construing statutes and deeds must read them with such punctua tion as will give effect to the whole ; 4 Term 65.
In construing deeds, it is said that no re gard is to be had to punctuation, and al though stops are sometimes used, they are not to be regarded in the construction of the instrument; 3 Washb. R. P. 397. See O'Brien v. Brice, 21 W. Va. 707. Punctuation is not allowed to throw light on printed statutes in England; 24 Beay. 330; nor to interfere with the natural and usual meaning of the language employed; O'Brien v. Brice, 21 W. Va. 704.
In an act of parliament there are no such things as brackets, any more than there are such things as stops; 24 Q. B. D. 478.
Punctuation may be considered in deter mining the meaning of a contract, when it is doubtful; Com. v. Kelley, 177 Mass. 221, 58 N. E. 691.
Where a comma after a word in a stat ute, if any force were attached to it, would give the section containing it broader scope than it would otherwise have, it was held that that circumstance should not have a controlling influence. Punctuation is no part of the statute ; Hammock v. Trust Co., 105 U. S. 77, 26 L. Ed. 1111; in construing stat utes, courts will disregard punctuation; or, if need be, repunctuate, to render the true meaning of the statute; Hamilton v. The R. B. Hamilton, 16 Ohio St. 432, approved in Hammock v. Trust Co., 105 U. S. 77, 26 L. Ed. 1111; President &c. v. Ruse, 14 C. L. R. (Australia) 224; State v. Brodigan, 31 Nev. 486, 125 Pac. 699; In re Gyger's Es tate, 65 Pa. 311; Cushing v. Worrick, Gray (Mass.) 385. It may shed some light
on the construction of statutes, but the court will read them with such stops as will give effect to the whole; Crawford v. Burke, 195 U. S. 176, 25 Sup. Ct. 9, 49 L. Ed. 147 ; it is not decisive of the meaning ; Ford v. Land Co., 164 U. S. 662, 17 Sup. Ct. 230, 41 L. Ed. 590. In New York it is part of a statute as Passed and as appears on the roll as filed with the secretary of state; Tyrrell v. New York, 159 N. Y. 239, 53 N. E. 1111. Punctua tion is a fallible standard in statutes, but commas in the description of a boundary line may be considered; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. U. S., 227 U. S. 356, 33 Sup. Ct. 368, 57 L. Ed. 544.
Punctuation is a most fallible standard by which to interpret a writing ; it may be re sorted to when all other means fail, but the court will first ascertain the meaning from the four corners of the instrument; Ewing v. Burnet, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 41, 9 L. Ed. 624.
Lord St. Leonards said: "in wills and deeds you do not ordinarily find any stops; but the court reads them as if they were properly punctuated ;" 2 Dr. & War. 98.
Judges in the later cases have been influ enced in construing wills by the punctua tion of the original document; 2 M. & G. 679; 26 Beay. 81; 24 L. J. Ch. 523; but see 1 Mer. 651, where Sir William Grant refused to resort to punctuation as an aid to con struction. See, also, Arcularius v. Sweet, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 405; 16 Can. L. J. 183.
Quotation marks are punctuatiou; State v. Bonfield, 43 Or. 287, 72 Pac. 1093. So are "ditto" marks; Hughes v. Powers, 99 Tenn. 480, 42 S. W. 1.