In Munro v. State of New York, 223 N.Y. 208 (1918), the Court of Appeals held that the language of a private compensation bill stating that "the court shall award to and render judgement for the claimant for such sum as shall be just and equitable" should be read as directory, rather than as a mandatory requirement that a court award compensation to the claimant. As that court articulated: "The use of a word 'shall' in these latter phrases was not intended to nullify the power of the court to hear, audit and determine or make it compulsory to award damages. The clear intent of the legislature was to confer authority and power upon the Court of Claims and not to direct or control its action. The words 'shall' and 'must' when found in a statute are not always imperative. The instances are many in which courts have treated a mandatory word as merely permissive when necessary to sustain an act or accomplish the purpose which was clearly intended.In Anderson's Appeal ( In re Supervisor of Nether Providence Twp., 215 Pa. 119, 64 A. 443) it was said: "The word 'shall' when used by the legislature to a court is usually a grant of authority and means 'may.'"