Definition
A Latin maxim of legal construction meaning, literally, "referring each to each" or "referring individual things to individual subjects." The rule directs that when a sentence or clause in a legal instrument contains multiple subjects and multiple predicates, each part should be read as applying to its corresponding counterpart — distributing the terms in sequence rather than applying every word to every subject. The result is a distributive, one-to-one pairing of words and phrases within a single sentence, producing a coherent reading that avoids redundancy or absurdity.
The maxim functions as a canon of construction, not a rule of substantive law. It guides courts and drafters in deciphering instruments — deeds, contracts, statutes, wills — where a single grammatical structure bundles together multiple discrete operations or referents. The principle assumes the drafter intended each element to carry distinct meaning and that a distributive reading best honors that intent.
A simplified illustration: if an instrument states that "A and B shall have X and Y respectively," referendo singula singulis directs that A takes X and B takes Y, rather than both A and B sharing both X and Y.
---
Common Confusion
Referendo singula singulis is sometimes loosely grouped with the companion maxim reddendo singula singulis, and the two are occasionally treated as interchangeable. They are closely related but distinct. Reddendo singula singulis ("rendering each to each") is the more commonly cited twin and specifically governs how grammatical exceptions, conditions, or qualifications in an instrument should be distributed back to their proper antecedents. Referendo singula singulis emphasizes the forward-referring distributive assignment of subjects to predicates. In practice, courts often cite one when they arguably mean the other, and historical legal sources sometimes use both phrases to describe the same interpretive move. Researchers should treat any citation to either maxim as potentially implicating the other.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in older case law and equity practice, particularly in disputes over the construction of deeds, wills, and complex contract clauses from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is part of a broader family of Latin canons of construction that courts invoked regularly before plain-language drafting norms took hold.
Researchers should be alert to several navigational issues:
First, the maxim is rarely the holding of a case — it is typically invoked as supporting logic for a distributional reading that the court had already settled on substantively. Finding it cited in a case does not mean the maxim itself was contested; it was usually decorative authority for an otherwise sensible parsing.
Second, the close relationship with reddendo singula singulis means that corpus searches using one Latin phrase may miss relevant authority using the other. A thorough research trail requires searching both formulations, as well as English-language descriptions such as "distributive construction" or "referring each to each."
Third, the maxim's practical importance has diminished in modern drafting and modern judicial construction. Contemporary courts are far more likely to reach the same distributional result through ordinary principles of grammatical construction or the rule against surplusage, without invoking the Latin tag. Researchers working in modern contexts may find the maxim absent from recent case law even when its logic silently governs the outcome.
Fourth, the maxim carries real stakes in property law research, particularly for deeds conveying different estates or interests to multiple grantees in a single habendum clause. Historical deed construction cases are a productive corpus for locating substantive applications of this rule.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) provides the only entry in the available source material, defining the maxim tersely as "referring individual or separate words to separate subjects; making a distributive reference of words in an instrument; a rule of construction." This definition is accurate as far as it goes but gives the researcher almost nothing to work with in terms of application or context. It identifies the maxim as a rule of construction without specifying the types of instruments or disputes to which it most commonly applied, and it does not distinguish the maxim from reddendo singula singulis.
The brevity is characteristic of the treatment Latin maxims received in classical legal dictionaries, which tended to catalog them for identification rather than to explain their operation. Researchers relying solely on Black's 2nd for guidance on how to apply this maxim will need to supplement with primary sources or a treatise on statutory or contract construction.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The maxim is a general common law canon of construction with no jurisdiction-specific formulation. Its application is universal in principle across common law systems, but because it appears predominantly in older case law, its practical weight varies significantly by jurisdiction depending on how actively courts in that jurisdiction invoked Latin canons of construction historically.
---