Definition
Reddendo singula singulis (Latin: "rendering each to each") is a canon of construction directing that when a sentence or clause contains multiple subjects and multiple predicates, each predicate should be read as applying to its most appropriate subject, and each subject as governed by its most appropriate predicate. Rather than reading every modifier or phrase as applying to every element in a list, a court applies the rule distributively, matching each part to its proper counterpart.
The rule is most commonly invoked when a single sentence joins several nouns with several verbs, or several antecedents with several relative clauses, in a way that would produce ambiguity or absurdity if every combination were read together. The interpretive move is to pair elements in logical sequence — first to first, second to second — so that the sentence operates sensibly.
Common Confusion
Reddendo singula singulis is occasionally conflated with the rule of the last antecedent (the presumption that a qualifying phrase modifies only the immediately preceding term). The two rules address related but distinct problems. The last antecedent rule determines which noun a modifier attaches to; reddendo singula singulis determines which verb or predicate governs which noun when the sentence contains parallel series on both sides. A court may need to apply both rules in sequence when parsing a complex enumeration.
The rule is also sometimes loosely described as a "distributive" canon, which is accurate but can blur its boundaries with other distributive presumptions in statutory interpretation. The specific function of reddendo singula singulis is sequential pairing within a listed series, not a general preference for reading terms separately.
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears infrequently in modern judicial opinions by its Latin name, which creates a significant retrieval problem. Courts applying the rule often describe it in plain English — "reading each clause to its appropriate object," "construing the provision distributively," or simply "matching each term to its counterpart" — without ever using the Latin phrase. A keyword search for the Latin alone will undercount relevant authority substantially.
Conversely, older cases and treatises invoke the Latin freely, particularly in opinions construing conveyances, wills, and penal statutes from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Burrill cites Coke's Reports (5 Co. 7b, Justice Windham's Case) as an early locus of the rule, which signals that the canon has roots in property and conveyancing contexts before migrating into general statutory construction. Researchers working with historical deed or will language should expect to encounter the doctrine there first.
The practical research trap is assuming the rule has fallen out of use. It has not; it survives prominently in statutory interpretation debates, particularly around complex enumerated lists in federal and state legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court and various circuit courts have applied the distributive reading principle it encodes without using the Latin term. Finding modern applications requires searching by the functional description rather than the name.
Jurisdictional variation in how aggressively courts apply the canon — and how they resolve conflicts between reddendo singula singulis and the last antecedent rule — is a live research issue. When the two canons point in different directions, courts sometimes prefer the last antecedent rule for modifying phrases while reserving reddendo singula singulis for parallel verb-and-noun series. That prioritization is not uniform.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (both the first and second editions) gives an identical, spare definition: "By referring each to each; referring each phrase or expression to its appropriate object. A rule of construction." The entries are definitionally accurate but offer no guidance on when the rule applies, how conflicts with competing canons are resolved, or what its historical domain was.
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides slightly more texture, describing the rule as "rendering or assigning separate things to separate persons, or separate words to separate subjects; making distribution; construing distributively" — and anchoring it to Coke's Reports. Burrill's framing as an expression "used to denote" a distributive construction method is more useful than Black's bare paraphrase, because it signals the rule's origins in conveyancing and early common law pleading.
None of the historical sources discuss the rule's interaction with other interpretive canons, its application to modern statutory texts, or the plain-English ways courts invoke it without the Latin. Researchers relying solely on historical dictionary entries will have an accurate but thin understanding of the doctrine's practical operation.
Jurisdictional Note
The canon is recognized across common law jurisdictions, including English, American, and Commonwealth courts. American courts have applied it in both common law and statutory contexts, though its invocation is more frequent in older decisions construing instruments of conveyance and testamentary documents. No jurisdiction has formally abolished the rule, but its explicit use is more common in courts with stronger textualist canons traditions.