Thus far in the discussion the attempt has been to consider a number of common terms of general designation, such as "children," "issue," and "heirs," detached from other language with which they may be found and disassociated from the circumstances under which they may be used, with a view to estimating their intrinsic significance in resolving questions as to the effect of adoption upon the identification of persons designated by them. The examination from this point: of view could lead to the deduction that in themselves the particular terms of designation furnished varying degrees of assistance to the interpreter of the instrument. It was not meant to suggest, however, that the particular words were in fact to be considered alone. True, courts now and then have ascribed an inherent finality to the meaning of one or more of these terms, in so far as they bear on the subject, but in the great percentage of instances it has been otherwise. The backdrop of circumstance has been recognized. So has the context afforded by the rest of the instrument. As sometimes explicitly stated, the intention is to be gathered from the instrument as a whole.
J. W. Oler,
CONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE INSTRUMENTS WHERE ADOPTED CHILDREN ARE CONCERNED: II,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol43/iss5/4