Words ought to be made subservient to the intent, not contrary to it.

Explanation

Words in a contract, statute, or instrument must serve the intent of the parties or the legislature, not override it. When literal language conflicts with clear intent, courts follow the intent.

Where this applies

• A lease contains a clause that literally requires the tenant to maintain the roof, but all parties clearly intended the landlord to handle structural repairs; the court follows the intent over the literal words.
• A statute's wording appears to criminalize a harmless act, but the legislative record shows the law was aimed at a specific dangerous behavior; the court reads the words to serve the clear intent.
• A trust document uses a word that technically excludes one beneficiary, but all other provisions and the trustee's testimony show the settlor meant to include her; the court holds the words subservient to the proven intent.