holding that it is the court’s duty to enforce contracts according to their plain terms
How later courts described this case
- holding that it is the court’s duty to enforce contracts according to their plain terms
- contractual language should be understood in its plain, ordinary and popular sense, and if contract is unambiguous, it should be enforced as written
- "It is the Court's duty to enforce contracts according to their plain terms. ... The courts, of course, are precluded from creating a new contract for the parties."
- “The cardinal rule for interpretation of contracts is to ascertain the intention of the parties and to give effect to that intention, consistent with legal principles.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
The petition to rehear was not timely filed under Rule 32 of this Court nor does it contain any new argument or cite any new authority as required by said Rule.
The petition is accordingly overruled.