 | Emer de Vattel - 1797 - 1216 pages
...Interpretation of Treaties. 262. -Nccefiity of efbblifhing rules of interpretation, 244 Firft general maxim — it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation, ibid. 264. Second general maxim — if he who could and ought to have explained himfclf, has not done... | |
 | Joseph Chitty - 1818 - 892 pages
...a celebrated writer on the law of nations J, that it is the first general maxim of interpretation, "that it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation ;" and that when a deed is worded in clear and precise terms, when its meaning is evident, and leads... | |
 | Theodore Lyman - 1826 - 412 pages
...demolishing the fortifications. No maxim in public law is of higher and more general authority, than that " it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation." The American government subsequently consented that the fortifications should be demolished. The Spaniards,... | |
 | Joseph Chitty - 1834 - 850 pages
...separately responsible (e). OF i AUDI. EVIDENCE IN CONTRADICTION, &C., TO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT. — It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. Qitoties in rerbis nulla est amblffuitns, ibi nulla exposilio contra verba Jienda est ( /'). The principle... | |
 | Arkansas. Supreme Court - 1876 - 650 pages
...the intention of the parties ; and this intent, when ascertained, fixes their rights and liabilities. The first general maxim of interpretation is, that it is not allowable to interpret that which has no need of interpreSwayne vs. Vance, Ex'r, etc. tation. By this is meant, that if the... | |
 | Daniel Kimball Whitaker, Milton Clapp, William Gilmore Simms, James Henley Thornwell - 1846 - 548 pages
...case falling under that rule of Vattel, which he calls "the first general maxim of interpretation — That it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation." "In order (says Mr. Calhoun) to prevent so important a provision from being eluded, the provision immediately... | |
 | Arkansas. Supreme Court - 1851 - 860 pages
...exposition shall be made xvhich is opposed to the express words of the instrument, or in other words, it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. (Smith on Ht. 6f Const. Con. p. 651, sec. 505.) No such necessity was shown otherwise than by the presentation... | |
 | E. Fitch Smith - 1848 - 1004 pages
...any other kind of laws. § 478. The first general maxim of interpretation laid down by this writer is, that it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation.(d) When the words of an act are in clear and precise terms, — when its meaning is... | |
 | E. Fitch Smith - 1848 - 1040 pages
...carries no absurdity on the face of it. Such a procedure is a violation of that incontestable maxim — that it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. (a) Much less are we allowed, — when the author of a piece has in the piece itself declared his reasons... | |
 | Emer de Vattel, Edward Duncan Ingraham - 1852 - 670 pages
...carries no absurdity on the face of it. Such a procedure is a violation of that incontestable maxim, — that it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation (§ 263). Much less are we allowed, — when the author of a piece has in the piece itself declared... | |
| |
It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation, and when the words have a definite and precise meaning, to go elsewhere in search of conjecture in order to restrict or extend the meaning. 
