ejusdem generis doctrine in Indiana

1913The title of the Factory Act is as follows: “An Act concerning labor, and providing means for protecting the liberty, safety and health of laborers, providing for its enforcement by creating a department of inspection, and making an appropriation therefor, repealing all laws in conflict therewith.” Section 9 of the act provides “* * * all vats, pans, saws, planers, cogs, gearing, belting, shafting, set screws and machinery of every description therein shall be properly guarded * * *.” In United States Cement Co. v. Cooper (1909), 172 Ind. 599 , 88 N. E. 69 it was contended that this act did no

1913The title of the Factory Act is as follows: “An Act concerning labor, and providing means for protecting the liberty, safety and health of laborers, providing for its enforcement by creating a department of inspection, and making an appropriation therefor, repealing all laws in conflict therewith.” Section 9 of the act provides “* * * all vats, pans, saws, planers, cogs, gearing, belting, shafting, set screws and machinery of every description therein shall be properly guarded * * *.” In United States Cement Co. v. Cooper (1909), 172 Ind. 599 , 88 N. E. 69 it was contended that this act did no

1935Appellants’ first proposition, as stated in their brief, is as follows: “The court erred in its second conclusion of law in holding that the appellants should be enjoined from erecting a filling station upon said lot, because there is no prohibition in the deed containing the restrictive covenants against the erection of any kind of structure, and no restriction against' the erection and use of a filling station thereon, under the doctrine of ejusdem generis.” “The doctrine of ejusdem generis is that where a general word follows particular and specific words of the same nature as itself, it ta

1935Appellants’ first proposition, as stated in their brief, is as follows: “The court erred in its second conclusion of law in holding that the appellants should be enjoined from erecting a filling station upon said lot, because there is no prohibition in the deed containing the restrictive covenants against the erection of any kind of structure, and no restriction against' the erection and use of a filling station thereon, under the doctrine of ejusdem generis.” “The doctrine of ejusdem generis is that where a general word follows particular and specific words of the same nature as itself, it ta

2018Here, the specific item is the "statutes and laws of the State of Texas," (App. Vol. II at 105), while the general term is "this state." ( Id. ) Therefore, "this state" means Texas and not Indiana, regardless of where the parties signed the Agreement.

1985Old Colony Trust Co. v. Hale (1939), 302 Mass. 68 , 18 N.E.2d 432 .

1985Old Colony Trust Co. v. Hale (1939), 302 Mass. 68 , 18 N.E.2d 432 .

1976The tenets of this doctrine have been articulately expressed by our Supreme Court in Kidwell v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 430, at 432 , 230 N.E.2d 590, at 591-92 (Cert. denied, 392 U.S. 943 , 88 S.Ct. 2326 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 1405 ), as follows: “Under the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis, when words of specific or limited signification in a statute are followed by general words of more comprehensive import, the general words are construed to embrace only such things as are of like kind or class with those designated by the specific words unless a contrary intention is clearly expressed.

1976The tenets of this doctrine have been articulately expressed by our Supreme Court in Kidwell v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 430, at 432 , 230 N.E.2d 590, at 591-92 ( Cert. denied, 392 U.S. 943 , 88 S.Ct. 2326 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1405 ), as follows: "Under the doctrine of Ejusdem Generis, when words of specific or limited signification in a statute are followed by general words of more comprehensive import, the general words are construed to embrace only such things as are of like kind or class with those designated by the specific words, unless a contrary intention is clearly expressed.

1973Application of Central Airlines (1947), 199 Okl. 300 , 185 P.2d 919, 924 .

1973Application of Central Airlines (1947), 199 Okl. 300 , 185 P.2d 919, 924 .

1972That rule has been defined as follows: “The rule undobtedly is that where words of specific and limited signification in a statute are followed by general words of more comprehensive import, the general words shall be construed as embracing only such persons, places and things as are of like kind or class to those designated by the specific words, unless a contrary intention is clearly shown by the statute.” Wiggins v. State (1908), 172 Ind. 78, 80 , 87 N. E. 718 .

1972That rule has been defined as follows: “The rule undobtedly is that where words of specific and limited signification in a statute are followed by general words of more comprehensive import, the general words shall be construed as embracing only such persons, places and things as are of like kind or class to those designated by the specific words, unless a contrary intention is clearly shown by the statute.” Wiggins v. State (1908), 172 Ind. 78, 80 , 87 N. E. 718 .

1943The appellee cites Taylor v. Strayer et al. (1906), 167 Ind. 23, 30 , 78 N. E. 236, 238 , in which it is said that it is manifest that the statute in question “has no application to any feature of this case, but only relates to penalties, forfeitures and *470 kindred liabilities.” This conclusion is not developed further.

1943The appellee cites Taylor v. Strayer et al. (1906), 167 Ind. 23, 30 , 78 N. E. 236, 238 , in which it is said that it is manifest that the statute in question “has no application to any feature of this case, but only relates to penalties, forfeitures and *470 kindred liabilities.” This conclusion is not developed further.

1935(See Boyleston v. Holmes [1916], 276 Ill. 229 , 114 N. E. 522 .) We think that by said provision the parties intended and understood that the conduct of any and all kinds of business or trade would be barred.

1932It is but a rule of construction to aid in ascertaining the meaning of the Legislature, and does not warrant a court in confining the operation of a statute within narrower limits than was intended by the lawmakers, Pein v. Miznerr (1908), 41 Ind. App. 255, 257 , 83 N. E. 784 , citing Willis v. Mabon (1892), 48 Minn. 140 , 50 N. W. 1110 , 16 L.

1932It is but a rule of construction to aid in ascertaining the meaning of the Legislature, and does not warrant a court in confining the operation of a statute within narrower limits than was intended by the lawmakers, Pein v. Miznerr (1908), 41 Ind. App. 255, 257 , 83 N. E. 784 , citing Willis v. Mabon (1892), 48 Minn. 140 , 50 N. W. 1110 , 16 L.

1916U. S. Cement Co. v. Cooper (1909), 172 Ind. 599 , 88 N. E. 69 ; Strange v. Board (1909), 173 Ind. 640 , 91 N. E. 242 . 4.

1916U. S. Cement Co. v. Cooper (1909), 172 Ind. 599 , 88 N. E. 69 ; Strange v. Board (1909), 173 Ind. 640 , 91 N. E. 242 . 4.

1913"When the Cose ease was decided, the writer of this opinion had not had occasion to examine the Meeker and Sullender cases, but when the Cooper case came on, he took strong ground as to the doctrine of those cases, and the application of the ejusdem generis rule in Laporte Carriage Co. v. Sullender (1905), 165 Ind. 290 , 75 N. E. 270 .

1913The result was a different view by the court, in the Cooper case, and conformity of that decision with Bessler v. Laughlin (1907), 168 Ind. 38 , 79 N. E. 1033 , as distinguished from the Meeker and Cose cases, and I am still persuaded with the better reason.

1913The result was a different view by the court, in the Cooper case, and conformity of that decision with Bessler v. Laughlin (1907), 168 Ind. 38 , 79 N. E. 1033 , as distinguished from the Meeker and Cose cases, and I am still persuaded with the better reason.