CELINK v. Estate of Pyle

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• exploring the difference between “may” and “must” and explaining that “[t]he ordinary meaning of the language, must be presumed to be intended, unless it would manifestly defeat the object of the provisions”
• “The ordinary meaning of the language, must be presumed to be intended, unless it would manifestly defeat the object of the provisions.”
• under a joint and several faithful performance bond, “the plaintiff might have commenfced] suit against each of the obligors, severally, or a joint suit against them all”
• “But no general rule can be laid down upon this subject, further than that that exposition ought to be adopted in this, as in other cases, which carries into effect the true intent and object of the legislature in the enactment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).