The primary object of construction in contract law is to discover the intention of the parties.1 This intention in express contracts is, in the first instance, embodied in the words which the parties have used and is to be deduced therefrom.2 This rule applies to oral contracts,3 as well as to contracts in writing, and is the rule recognized by courts of equity.4 It follows, therefor, that construction cannot be expressed in a series of rigid rules from which in each case the legal effect of the particular contract can be determined infallibly. The principles which follow are prima facie rules for determining the mutual intention of the contracting parties, liable in any particular case to be inapplicable because of some phrase in that contract showing a contrary intention. The value of precedents in construction depends largely on the kind of contract involved. Certain kinds, such as bills of lading, insurance policies, and negotiable instruments are drawn in set forms, and precedents as to construction of a given form are of value in contracts of similar form, their value rapidly lessening as the form to be considered departs from that considered in the precedent. Other contracts are rarely drawn in set forms, and in their construction precedents are of value chiefly as illustrating the general principles by which the contract in question must be construed.

1 See Sec. 598 et seq.

1 Porter v. Allen, - Ida. - 69

Pac. 105, 236; Linehan, etc., Co. v. Ry., 107 La. 645. 31 So. 1026.

"The construction of a contract is nothing more than the gathering of the intention of the parties to it from the words they have used." Di Sora v. Phillips, 10 H. L. Cas. 624, 638; quoted in Gibbons v. Grin-sel, 79 Wis. 365, 369; 48 N. W. 255.

2 Rockefeller v. Merritt, 76 Fed. Rep. 909; 35 L. R. A. 633; 22 C. C. A. 608; Davis v. Robert, 89 Ala. 402; 18 Am. St. Rep. 126; 8 So. 114; Schroeder v. Ins. Co.; 132 Cal. 18; 84 Am. St. Rep. 17; 63 Pac. 1074; McDermith v. Voorhees, 16 Colo. 402; 25 Am. St. Rep. 286; 27 Pac. 250; Atchison, etc., R. R. v. R. R., 162 111. 632; 35 L. R. A. 167; 44 N. E. 823; Cravens v. Cotton Mills, 120 Ind. 6; 16 Am. St. Rep. 298; 21 N. E. 981; Heiple v. Reinhart, 100 Ia. 525; 69 N. W. 871; superseding 65 N. W. 331; Louisville, etc., Ry. v. Ry., 100 Ky. 690; 39 S. W. 42; Yorston v. Brown, 178 Mass. 103; 59 N. E. 654; Hoose v. Ins. Co., 84 Mich. 309; 11 L. R. A. 340; 47 N. W. 587; Mathews v. Phelps, 61 Mich.

327; 1 Am. St. Rep. 581; 28 N. W. 108; Lovelace v. Protective Association, 126 Mo. 104; 47 Am. St. Rep. 638; 30 L. R. A. 209; 28 S. W. 877; Mastin v. Stoller, 107 Mo. 317; 17 S. W. 1011; McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Brown, (Neb.), 98 N. W. 697; Jackson v. Phillips, 57 Neb. 189; 77 N. W. 683; Chism v. Schipper, 51 N. J. L. 1; 14 Am. St. Rep. 668; 2 L. R. A. 544; 16 Atl. 316; Berry Harvester Co. v. Machine Co., 152 N. Y. 540; 46 N. E. 952; Sehoonmaker v. Hoyt, 148 N. Y. 425; 42 N. E. 1059; Smith v. Kerr, 108 N. Y. 31; 2 Am. St. Rep. 362; 15 N. E. 70; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Myers, 62 O. S. 529; 49 L. R. A. 760; 57 N. E. 458; McFarland v. R. R., etc., Association, 5 Wyom. 126; 63 Am. St. Rep. 29; 27 L. R. A. 48; 38 Pac. 347, 677.

3 Ins. Co. v. Crane, 134 Mass. 56; 45 Am. Rep. 282.

4 Atchison, etc., R. R. v. R. R., 162 111. 632; 35 L. R. A. 167; 44 N. E. 823.