Sec 663

An agreement may be collected from the entire document in which it is contained, and requires, unless prescribed by statute, no special technical terms to give it effect.4 Thus a covenant to plough certain leased premises except a sheep walk, has been held to be a covenant not to plough the sheep walk.5 A lease with a covenant by the lessee to keep in repair a house, "being previously put in repair," includes a covenant by the lessor to put the house in repair.1 A covenant to pay a share of the profits of a certain business for three years, to one from whom it was purchased, implies a covenant to remain in the business for three years.2 A recital, also, may involve a covenant.3 Thus, a recital in a composition deed, that the debtor had agreed to pay a specified composition to all his creditors, has been held to amount to a covenant on which a creditor could sue.4 But words of mere qualification are not to be strained into an agreement.5 Thus, where a lease contained a covenant not to assign without the lessor's consent, such "consent not being arbitrarily withheld," this was construed not to imply a covenant by the lessor not to arbitrarily withhold his consent from an assignment.6 And no covenant can be implied from a recital if the deed contains an express covenant concerning the subject matter to which it is sought to apply the implied covenant.7

Technical terms to be subordinated to context.

1 See Clifford V. Watts, L. R. 5 C. P. 577; Northumberland V. Erring-ton, 5 T. R. 526; Finch's case, 6 Rep. 39; Morgan V. Gath, 3 H. & C. 748; Staniland V. Hopkins, 9 M. & W. 178; Gray V. Clark, 11 Vt. 583; Nettleton V. Billings, 13 N. H. 446; M'Quiston V. Board, 88 Penn. St. 29; Sapp V. Phelps, 92 Ill. 588; Greeneville R. R. V. Johnson, 8 Baxt. 332.

2 Libbey, J., Littlefield V. Coombs, 71 Me. 111, citing Tuckerman V. Hart-well, 3 Me. 147; Johnson V. Heagan, 23 Me. 329; Heywood V. Perrin, 10 Pick. 228; Benedict V. Cowden, 49 N. Y. 396.

3 Hazleton Co. V. Buck Mountain Co., 57 Penn. St. 301.

4 Supra, sec 641; Pordage V. Cole, 1 Wms. Saund. 319 b; Daniels V. Harris, L. R. 10 C. P. 8; Lee V. Lee, L. R. 4 C. D. 175; Brookes V. Drysdale, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 52; Marler V. Tommes, L. R. 17 Eq. 8; Jackson V. R. R., L. R. 7 C. D. 573. So the Roman law; L. 50; sec 3, D. de legat. 1; "item earum, quae pracedunt vel quae sequuntur, summarum scripta sunt spectanda.".

5 St. Albans V. Ellis, 16 East, 352. As to construction of covenants, see supra, sec 555 et seq.

Sec 664

When large and sweeping terms are used in documents as matters of formal conveyancing, the whole context is to be taken into consideration, and these expressions are to be narrowed to their object. A grantor conveys "all my estate". "in B.," etc. If we take "all my estate" and sever it from the context, his entire property might pass under the deed. But "all my estate" cannot be severed from " in B.," etc. This is an extreme case, but there are innumerable instances in which the same principle is applied.8 Thus the condition of a bond is ordinarily limited by its recitals.1 General words of conveyance, also, are to be restricted by recitals showing that it was only a limited title that was conveyed.2 The words "full power to convey," also, in a recital are to be qualified by the express powers and covenants which follow.3 And, as a general rule, "where a recital is followed by general words, the general words will be limited or qualified by the recital."4 sec 665. When several documents are so reciprocally dependent that the meaning of the one cannot be brought out without the introduction of the other, then they may be received together as affording a common basis for construction.5 - When one of a series of letters cannot be understood without the study of the whole series, then the whole series must be taken into consideration.6 But unless closely related and interdependent, such papers are not admissible for the purpose of getting at the meaning of a document under investigation.7 It is not necessary, however, that the documents should bear the same date, if they relate to the same subject.8 If they so relate they may be read together, as a bond accompanying a mortgage, to explain a mortgage.9

General terms to yield to special.

1 Cannock V. Jones, 3 Ex. 233.

2 M'Intyre V. Belcher, 14 C. B. N. S. 654; Marler V. Tommes, L. R. 17 Ex. 8.

3 Sampson V. Easterby, 9 B. & C. 505.

4 Brooks V. Jennings, L. R. 1 G. P. 476.

5 Wolveridge V. Steward, 1 C. & M. 657. That an agreement most be definite, see supra, sec 3.

6 Treloar V. Bigge, L. R. 9 Ex. 151; see Hyde V. Warden, L. R. 3 Ex. D. 72.

7 Young V. Smith, L. R. 1 Ex. 180.

8 See Cullen V. Butler, 5 M. & S. 461; Ellery V. Ins. Co., 8 Pick. 14; Callen V. Hilty, 14 Penn. St. 286; Edelman V. Yeakel, 27 Penn. St. 26; Allison's App., 77 Penn. St. 221; Perrin V. Ins. Co., 11 Ohio, 147. That general covenants of title yield to special, see supra, sec 553.