6 5 makes the contract fair and reasonable will be preferred to one which leads to harsh or unreasonable results. Therefore, construction of a contract which would lead to a forfeiture will not be favored. For the same reason, a restriction in a deed on the use of property will be construed in favor of the grantee; and when contracts are optional in respect to one party, they are strictly construed in favor of the party bound and against the party that is not bound. But the mere fact that parties have made an improvident bargain will not lead a court to make unnatural implications or artificial constructions.8 § 621. Secondary rules. Language will be construed most strongly against the party using it. Since one who speaks or writes, can by exactness of expression more easily prevent mistakes in meaning, than one with whom he is dealing, doubts arising from ambiguity of language ise by the buyer to pay. Roundy & McMurray Co. v. Nicholson Produce Co., 166 La. 39, 147 N. W. 305. 4A. Leschen & Sons Co. v. Mayflower, etc., Min. Co., 173 Fed. 855, 97 C. C. A. 465; Pressed Steel Car Co. . Eastern Ry. Co., 121 Fed. 609, 57 C. C. A. 635; Little Cahaba Coal Co. v. Etna L. Ins. Co., 192 Ala. 42, 68 So. 317, Ann. Cas. 1917 D. 863; Letchworth v. Vaughan, 77 Ark. 305, 90 S. W. 1001; Stein v. Archibald, 151 Cal. 220, 90 Pac. 536; Savage v. Smith, 170 Cal. 472, 150 Pac. 353; MacDonald v. Ætna Indemnity Co., 90 Conn. 226, 96 Atl. 926; Harz v. Peterson, 80 Ill. App. 21; R. F. Conway Co. v. Chicago, 274 Ill. 369, 113 N. E. 703; Blitz v. Union Steamboat Co., 51 Mich. 558, 17 N. W. 55; B. Siegel Co. v. Codd, 183 Mich. 145, 149 N. W. 1015; Mecartney v. Guardian Trust Co., 274 Mo. 224, 202 S. W. 1131; Gillet v. Bank of America, 160 N. Y. 549, 55 N. E. 292; Wigand v. Bachmann-Bechtel Brewing Co., 222 N. Y. 272, 118 N. E. 618; Fleischman v. Furgueson, 223 N. Y. 235, 119 N. E. 400; Bingell v. Royal Ins. Co., 240 Pa. 412, 87 Atl.955; Bank of Old Dominion v. McVeigh, 32 Gratt. 530; Allemong v. Augusta Nat. Bank, 103 Va. 243, 48 S. E. 897. * Maloney v. Maryland Casualty Co., 113 Ark. 174, 167 S. W. 845; Dumphy v. Commercial Union Assur. Co., 107 Tex. 107, 174 S. W. 814; Sparkman v. Davenport (Tex. Civ. App.), 160 S. W. 410; Adams v. Fidelity Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 201 S. W. 1034; Pagel v. United States Casualty Co., 158 Wis. 278, 148 N. W. 878. In Hunt v. Held, 90 Ohio, 280, 107 N. E. 765, it was held that where a right to enforce a restrictive covenant in a conveyance is doubtful, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the free use of the property for lawful purposes by the owner of the fee. Stone v. Pillsbury, 167 Mass. 332, 45 N. E. 768; Grubb v. Grubb, 101 Pa. 11. 7 Frank Oil Co. v. Belleview Gas & Oil Co., 29 Okl. 719, 119 Pac. 260. 8 In re P. J. Sullivan Co., 247 Fed. 9 are resolved in favor of the latter; and as he will ordinarily be the promisee of the promise in question, it is sometimes stated that the contract, if ambiguous, will be construed in favor of the promisee. 10 This rule finds frequent application to policies of insurance which are ordinarily prepared solely by the insurance company and the words, therefore, are construed most strongly against it.11 This has been so held even in case of standard policies the terms of which are fixed by statute; 12 but it seems rather that the reason of the rule ceasing, the rule also should cease in such a case; and this view has been taken by some courts, 13 though doubtless a construction already 139; Kanaskat Lumber Co. v. Cascade Timber Co., 80 Wash. 561, 142 Pac. 15. 'Bacon's Maxims, Tracts, 42; Sheppard's Touchstone, 87, 88; Mayer v. Isaac, 6 M. & W. 605; Wilson v. Cooper, 95 Fed. 625; Marx v. American Malting Co., 169 Fed. 582, 95 C. C. A. 80; Bijur Motor Lighting Co. v. Eclipse Mach. Co., 237 Fed. 89; Denson v. Caddell (Ala.), 77 So. 720; Allen-West Commission Co. v. People's Bank, 74 Ark. 41, 84 S. W. 1041; Clark v. J. R. Watkins Medical Co., 115 Ark. 166, 171 S. W. 136; Asmussen v. Post Printing Co., 26 Colo. App. 416, 143 Pac. 396; Mueller v. Northwestern University, 95 Ill. App. 258, affd. 195 Ill. 236, 63 N. E. 110, 88 Am. St. Rep. 194; Maney Milling Co. v. BakerWignall & Co., 186 Ill. App. 390; St. Landry State Bank v. Meyers, 52 La. Ann. 1769, 28 So. 136; Wier v. American Locomotive Co., 215 Mass. 303, 102 N. E. 481; Wetmore v. Patison, 45 Mich. 439, 8 N. W. 67; Ardis v. Grand Rapids &c. R. Co., 200 Mich. 400, 167 N. W. 5; Belch v. Schott, 171 Mo. App. 357, 157 S. W. 658; Flory v. Supreme Tribe, 98 Neb. 160, 152 N. W. 295; Marshall v. Sackett & Wilhelms Co., 166 N. Y. App. Div. 141, 151 N. Y. S. 1045; Hyland v. Oregon Hassam Pav. Co., 74 Oreg. 1, 144 Pac. 1160, L. R. A. 1915 C. 823, Ann. Cas. 1916 E. 941; In re Eighth Ave., 82 Wash. 398, 144 Pac. 533. 10 2 Bl. Comm. 380; Cal. Civ. Code, § 1654; Byron v. First Nat. Bank, 75 Or. 296, 146 Pac. 516. 11 Notman v. Anchor Ass. Co., 4 C. B. (N. S.) 476; Fowkes v. Manchester & London Association, 3 B. & S. 917; Joel v. Law Union & Crown Ins. Co., [1908] 2 K. B. 863, 890; Philadelphia Casualty Co. v. Fechheimer, 220 Fed. 401, 136 C. C. A. 25; Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. v. Draper, 187 Ala. 103, 65 So. 923; Petello v. Teutonia Fire Ins. Co., 89 Conn. 175, 93 Atl. 137, L. R. A. 1915 D. 812; McEachern v. New York Life Ins. Co., 15 Ga. App. 222, 82 S. E. 820; American Surety Co. v. Pangburn, 182 Ind. 116, 105 N. E. 967, Ann. Cas. 1916 E. 1126; Sinclair v. National Surety Co., 132 Ia. 549, 107 N. W. 184; Paskusz v. Philadelphia Casualty Co., 213 N. Y. 22, 106 N. E. 749; Moore v. Etna Life Ins. Co., 75 Or. 47, 146 Pac. 151. 12 Cottingham v. Maryland Motor Car Ins. Co., 168 N. C. 259, L. R. A. 1915 D. 344, Ann. Cas. 1917 B. 1237, 84 S. E. 274; Gazzam v. German Union F. Ins. Co., 155 N. C. 330, 71 S. E. 434. 13 Mick v. Royal Exchange Assur., 87 N. J. L. 607, 91 Atl. 102; Nelson v. Traders' Ins. Co., 181 N. Y. 472, 475, 74 N. E. 421. established by the courts for certain words before the adoption of a standard policy should be given to the same words in a standard policy.14 § 622. Secondary rules: Written matter in a contract is given greater effect than printed matter. Where part of the contract is in writing and part is in printing, the writing will be given effect if there is repugnancy between the two portions of the instrument.15 "This rule is applied with greater liberality where it appears that the printed matter is in obscure type or placed where it would not be likely to be seen or where the printed matter was evidently not intended to be incorporated in the contract. In such cases the printed matter has been accorded little influence in changing the clear and explicit language of a contract;" 16 but of course 14 Davis v. Insurance Co., 115 Mich. 382, 73 N. W. 393. 15 Robertson v. French, 4 East, 130, 136; Joyce v. Realm Ins. Co., L. R. 7 Q. B. 580, 583; Magee v. Lavell, L. R. 9 C. P. 107, 113; Dudgeon v. Pembroke, 2 App. Cas. 284; Glynn v. Margetson, [1893] App. Cas. 351; Breyman v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 85 Fed. 579; Lipschitz v. Napa Fruit Co., 223 Fed. 698, 139 C. C. A. 228; Augusta Factory v. Mente, 132 Ga. 503, 64 S. E. 553; Chicago v. Weir, 165 Ill. 582, 46 N. E. 725; Urbany #. Carroll, 176 Iowa, 217, 157 N. W. 852; Mansfield Machine Works v. Common Council, 62 Mich. 546, 29 N. W. 105; Sprague Electric Co. v. Board of Commissioners, 83 Minn. 262, 86 N. W. 332; Eager v. Mathewson, 27 Nev. 220, 74 Pac. 404; Collins v. Knuth, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 188, 64 N. Y. S. 549; Fagan v. Ulrich, 166 N. Y. App. D. 342, 152 N. Y. S. 37; Eighme. Holcomb, 84 Wash. 145, 146 Pac. 391. In Baumvoll Manufactur von Scheibler v. Gilchrest, [1891] 2 Q. B. 310, 317, Charles, J., said: "In construing a charter party, no greater effect can be given to writing than to print, although a different rule may prevail with reference to policies of insurance. Alsager v. St. Katherine Docks Co., 14 M. & W. 794." This distinction, however, seems unreasonable. The decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal on points not necessarily involving the passage quoted, in [1892] 1 Q. B. 253, and the Court of Appeals was sustained in [1893] A. C. 8. See Harding v. Cargo of Coal, 147 Fed. 971, 973. 18 Poel v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., 216 N. Y. 310, 110 N. E. 619, 623; citing Sturtevant Co. v. Fireproof Film Co., 216 N. Y. 199, 110 N. E. 440; Sturm v. Boker, 150 U. S. 312, 327, 14 S. Ct. 94, 37 L. Ed. 1093; Summers v. Hibbard, 153 Ill. 102, 38 N. E. 899, 46 Am. St. Rep. 872; R. J. Menz Lumber Co. v. McNeeley, 58 Wash. 223, 108 Pac. 621, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1007. The New York court added: "When the printed matter is not evidently intended to be incorporated in the contract and the understanding of the parties is doubtful, it is to be determined, as similar issues are determined, as a question of fact in the light of the surrounding circum if the printed and written matter can by any reasonable construction be reconciled, this will be done. 17 § 623. Secondary rules: An interpretation given by the parties themselves will be favored. The interpretation given by the parties themselves to the contract as shown by their acts will be adopted by the court, 18 stances. Sturtevant Co. v. Fireproof Film Co. supra; Clark v. Woodruff, 83 N. Y. 518, 522. In the present case the printed clauses are to the left of the signature of the defendant. They are printed in clear type, under a caption printed in type larger than the other type, which caption plainly reads: 'Conditions on which the above order is given.' The printed clauses are at least as plain and as prominently displayed upon the face of the order as the written matter contained therein. They are not in conflict with that which is written. Under these circumstances they must be deemed to be a part of the order and cannot be eliminated therefrom by the court upon an inference as to the intention of the parties, which is not reflected in the order or in any evidence that was received upon the trial." 17 Harding v. Cargo of Coal, 147 Fed. 971, 973; Hardie-Tynes Foundry Co. v. Glen Allen Oil Mill, 84 Miss. 259, 36 So. 262; Eager v. Mathewson, 27 Nev. 220, 74 Pac. 404; Gabbert v. William &c. Oil Co., 76 W. Va. 718, 86 S. E. 671. 18 Fitzgerald v. First Nat. Bank, 114 Fed. 474, 52 C. C. A. 276; Nelson v. Ohio Cultivator Co., 188 Fed. 620, 112 C. C. A. 394; Bunday v. Huntington, 224 Fed. 847, 140 C. C. A. 415; Bransford v. Regal Shoe Co., 237 Fed. 67, 150 C. C. A. 269; Birmingham Waterworks Co. v. Windham, 190 Ala. 634, 67 So. 424; Clark v. J. R. Watkins Medical Co., 115 Ark. 166, 171 S. W. 136; S. R. Watkins Medical Co. v. Williams, 124 Ark. 90, 187 S. W. 653; Woodard v. Glenwood Lumber Co., 171 Cal. 513, 153 Pac. 951; New Brantner Ditch Co. v. Kramer, 57 Col. 218, 141 Pac. 498, Ann. Cas. 1916 B. 1225; Reeves v. Daniel, 143 Ga. 569, 85 S. E. 756; Geithman v. Eichler, 265 Ill. 579, 107 N. E. 180; Windmiller v. People, 78 Ill. App. 273; Roush v. Roush, 154 Ind. 562, 55 N. E. 1017; Indiana Natural Gas Co. v. Stewart, 45 Ind. App. 554, 559, 90 N. E. 384; Pratt v. Prouty, 104 Ia. 419, 73 N. W. 1035, 65 Am. St. Rep. 472; Nicholl v. Wetmore, 174 Iowa, 132, 156 N. W. 319; W. T. Tilden Co. v. Densten Hair Co., 216 Mass. 323, 103 N. E. 916; Klemik v. Henricksen Jewelry Co., 128 Minn. 490, 151 N. W. 203; Williams v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 153 Mo. 487, 54 S. W. 689; St. Louis v. Laclede Gaslight Co., 155 Mo. 1, 55 S. W. 1003; Williams v. Auten, 68 Neb. 26, 93 N. W. 943; Wilhoit v. Stevenson, 96 Neb. 751, 148 N. W. 963; Van Dyke v. Anderson, 83 N. J. Eq. 568, 91 Atl. 593; Jarvie v. Arbuckle, 163 N. Y. App. Div. 199, 148 N. Y. S. 189; American Soda Fountain Co. v. Gerrer's Bakery, 14 Okl. 258, 78 Pac. 115; Wiebener v. Peoples, 44 Okl. 32, 142 Pac. 1036, Ann. Cas. 1916 E. 748; Gillespie v. Iseman, 210 Pa. 1, 59 Atl. 266; McMillin v. Titus, 222 Pa. 500, 503, 72 Atl. 240; Tustin v. Philadelphia, etc., Iron Co., 250 Pa. 425, 95 Atl. 595; Hassett v. Cooper, 20 R. I. 585, 40 Atl. 841; Phetteplace v. British, etc., Ins. Co., 23 R. I. 26, 49 Atl. 33; Williamson v. Eastern Building & Loan Co., 54 S. Car. 582, 32 S. E. 765, 71 Am. St. and to this end not only the acts 19 but the declarations of the parties 20 may be considered. But if the meaning of the contract is plain, the acts of the parties cannot prove a construction contrary to the plain meaning. 21 Such conduct of the parties, however, may be evidence of a subsequent modification of their contract.22 Rep. 822; Herndon v. Wardlaw, 100 S. Car. 1, 84 S. E. 112; State v. Board of Trust, 129 Tenn. 279, 164 S. W. 1151; Woodward v. Edmunds, 20 Utah, 118, 57 Pac. 848; Douglass v. Morrisville, 89 Vt. 393, 95 Atl. 810; Hairston v. Hill, 118 Va. 339, 87 S. E. 573; Lovett v. West Virginia Central Gas Co., 73 W. Va. 40, 79 S. E. 1007. "Lette v. Pacific Mill Co., 88 Fed. 957, affd. 94 Fed. 968, 36 C. C. A. 587; Clark v. University of Illinois, 103 Ill. App. 261; Gillett v. Teel, 272 Ill. 106, 111 N. E. 722; Baxter Springs v. Baxter Springs L. & P. Co., 64 Kans. 591, 68 Pac. 63; Lewiston &c. R. Co. v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 97 Me. 261, 54 Atl. 750; Winchester v. Glazier, 152 Mass. 316, 25 N. E. 728; Reynolds v. Boston Rubber Co., 160 Mass. 240, 245, 35 N. E. 677; C. D. Smith Drug Co. v. Saunders, 70 Mo. App. 221; Kopper v. Fulton, 71 Vt. 211, 44 Atl. 92; Clark v. Lambert, 55 W. Va. 512, 47 S. E. 312; and see cases in the preceding note. Laclede Construction Co. v. T. J. Moss Tie Co., 185 Mo. 25, 84 S. W. 76; Ganson v. Madigan, 15 Wis. 144, 153, 82 Am. Dec. 659. In Scotch Mfg. Co. #. Carr, 53 Fla. 480, 482, 43 So. 427, the court said: "If it be true, even in the case of a written contract the terms of which are doubtful or ambiguous, that the construction placed thereon by the parties themselves may be shown and shall govern, as the cited cases hold, with how much more force does this principle apply to oral contracts? The principles of technical nicety cannot be strictly applied in the construc tion of these everyday oral contracts made by plain business men in their course of trade and traffic. To do so would frequently result in overthrowing the meaning and understanding of the parties." 21 Northeastern R. Co. v. Hastings, [1900] App. Cas. 260; Railroad Co. v. Trimble, 10 Wall. 367, 19 L. Ed. 948; Cowles Electric Smelting Co. v. Lowrey, 79 Fed. 331, 24 C. C. A. 616; Lesamis v. Greenberg, 225 Fed. 449, 140 C. C. A. 481; Adams v. Turner, 73 Conn. 38, 46 Atl. 247; Joliet Bottling Co. v. Joliet Citizens' Brewing Co., 254 Ill. 215, 98 N. E. 263; Finch v. Theiss, 267 Ill. 65, 107 N. E. 898; Western Ry. Equipment Co. v. Missouri Malleable Iron Co., 91 Ill. App. 28; Wilkins v. Young, 144 Ind. 1, 41 N. E. 68, 590, 55 Am. St. Rep. 162; Clarke v. Rogers, 159 Ky. 762, 169 S. W. 485; Menage v. Rosenthal, 175 Mass. 358, 56 N. E. 579; Cowles Elec. Smelting Co. v. Lowrey, 79 Fed. 331, 24 C. C. A. 616; O'Brien v. Peck, 198 Mass. 50, 84 N. E. 325; Boeing v. Fordney, 184 Mich. 153, 150 N. W. 852; Meissner v. Standard Equipment Co., 211 Mo. 112, 133, 109 S. W. 730; Cincinnati v. Gas Light, etc., Co., 53 Ohio St. 278, 41 N. E. 239; Howell v. Johnson, 38 Or. 571, 64 Pac. 659; Sternbergh v. Brock, 225 Pa. 279, 74 Atl. 166, 133 Am. St. Rep. 877, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1078; Rea v. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 245 Pa. 589, 91 Atl. 1053; Fass v. South Atlantic L. Ins. Co., 105 S. Car. 107, 89 S. E. 558. 22 O'Brien v. Peck, 198 Mass. 50, 84 N. E. 325; Matgolys v. Mollenick, 98 N. Y. S. 849. |