Tuck & Sons v. Priester
Rule established
Noscitur a sociis applied. The meaning of a doubtful word is determined by reference to the words associated with it in the statute.
Facts
- Dispute over the scope of a contractual term
- One word in the agreement was capable of a wide or narrow meaning
- Court looked at the surrounding words to determine the intended scope
Issue
- How should an ambiguous word be interpreted when its meaning can be inferred from the words around it?
Held
- Noscitur a sociis applies: "a word is known by the company it keeps"
- The meaning of a doubtful or ambiguous word is determined by reference to the words associated with it
- Context provided by surrounding/companion words colours the meaning
- The wider meaning was rejected in favour of the meaning consistent with companion words
Ratio Decidendi
A word derives its meaning from the words associated with it in the statute. Where a word is ambiguous, its companions determine its scope (noscitur a sociis).
How to use it in an exam
- The leading case for noscitur a sociis
- Distinguish from ejusdem generis (which requires general word after specific list)
- Key line: "In Tuck v. Priester (1887), the court applied noscitur a sociis: a word is known by the company it keeps, and its meaning is gathered from the words associated with it."
Source
Source: (1887) 19 QBD 629; standard textbook authority
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.
Cited in study notes
Interpretation of StatutesMaxims Ejusdem Generis Noscitur Expressio UniusLeading case for noscitur a sociis