382 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

ently vouched by the signature of the solicitor, whose author-
ity to file it need not be exhibited. 2 Har. & Gill, 374. The
corporation could not swear to the bill, and I can see no good
objection to the affidavit of the treasurer of the company. I
think the truth of the facts set forth in the bill sufficiently veri-
fied by his affidavit, and that is all that is required. 1 Bland,
180.

[An appeal was taken from this order, but it was subsequent-
ly dismissed by the appellant.]

RICHARD R. PUE,
PROCHIEN AMI OF MATILDA R. H.. PUE

AND HENRY H. PUE, MINORS MARCH TERM, 1849.

vs.
HENRY H. PUE ET AL.

[CONSTRUCTION OF WILLS.]

IT is the duty of the courts to give effect to every part of a will, without change
or rejection, provided, an effect can be given to it, not inconsistent with the
general intent of the whole will taken together.

When there are two conflicting clauses, the principle is, that you are not to
disturb the prior devise further than is absolutely necessary for the purpose
of giving effect to posterior qualifying disposition.

When a testator uses, in one part of his will, words having a clear meaning in
law, and in another part, words inconsistent with the former, the first words
are to be cancelled and overthrown, only, when the two provisions are totally
inconsistent with each other, and where the real intention of the testator can-
not be ascertained.

It is now fully established, that the general intent of the testator, though first
expressed, will overrule the particular intent.

[This case originated on the petition of Richard R. Pue, the
next friend of Matilda R. H. Pue, and Henry H. Pue, infants;

stating that Philip Hammond, deceased, by his last will and
testament, devised to his daughter Harriet, a tract of land in
Anne Arundel county in fee simple, upon which she entered