
    Richard Allen v. William Brazier and J. H. Randolph.
    To ascertain the meaning of any part of an instrument, the whole must ho construed together.
    Where a contract is made to deliver a chattel “to A. as agent ofB.” and in default, to pay a sum certain “ to the said A.” without saying as agent, B. upon default, may maintain debt for the penalty in his own name.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Evans, at Edgefield, Fall Term, 1830,
    The defendants, by their writing obligatory, contracted “ to deliver to Joseph McClintock, as agent and attorney for Richard Allen, of Georgia,” a certain slave, and in default thereof, “to pay to the said McClintock” the sum of one hundred dollars. The slave was not delivered, and Richard Allen brought debt for the penalty. His Honor held that the action ought to have been in the name of McClintock, and ordered a non-suit. This was a motion to set aside the non-suit.
    McDuffie-and Terry for the motion,
    Butler, contra.
    
   Harper J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In ascertaining the meaning of an instrument, the whole must be construed together. The first part of the instrument in question is an undertaking to deliver the slave to Joseph McClintock in the character of agent. The plain purport of the subsequent part is to liquidate the damages if he be not delivered. Certainly it must be intended that the same person who is intitled to the duty shall be intitled to the damages if it be not rendered, and in the same character. I think this the more obvious import of the promise to pay one hundred dollars to “the said McClintock.” The principal undertaking was to him as agent, and his character being once described, it was not necessary to repeat the description as often as the name occurred. The decision of the circuit Judge is therefore reversed, and the non-suit ordered to be set ., aside.

Motion granted.  