Words of technical meaning will be given that meaning,1 unless the context shows that the ordinary meaning was intended.2 Thus "horse-power" in a contract for the sale of water power has been held to mean the efficient, and not the theoretical horse-power.3 It is accordingly proper to introduce evidence to show that certain words in a written contract have a technical meaning, and what that meaning is.4 Thus evidence is admissible to show the meaning of "watch makers' material,"5" dry goods,"6 "artesian well,"7 to "reduce" fire insurance,8 "order" in a contract of agency for the sale of books,9 "merchantable timber,"10 or in the sale of horses, the meaning of "good condition,"11 or "safe property,"12 or in contracts for the management of railroads, the meaning of "necessary signals and switchmen,"13 or "other similar appliances,"14 or "transportation," "switching," and "transfer."15

4 Melick v. Foster, 64 N. J. L. 394; 45 Atl. 911.

1 Seymour v. Armstrong, 62 Kan. 720; 64 Pac. 612; affirming 10 Kan. App. 10; 61 Pac. 675.

2 Atkinson v. Sinnott, 67 Miss. 502; 7 So. 289.

3 Lloyd v. Kehl, 132 Cal. 107; 64 Pac. 125.

4 Grasmier v. Wolf (Ia.), 90 N. W. 813; Cambers v. Lowry, 21 Mont. 478; 54 Pac. 816.

5 Maril v. Ins. Co., 95 Ga. 604; 51 Am. St. Rep. 102; 30 L. R. A. 835; 23 S. E. 463.

6 Wood v. Allen, 111 Ia. 97; 82 N. W. 451.

7 Hattiesburg Plumbing Co. v. Carmichael, 80 Miss. 66; 31 So. 536; (whether this implied that the water must rise to the top)

8 Halsey v. Adams, 63 N. J. L. 330; 43 Atl. 708; (equivalent to "cancel").

9 Newhall v. Appleton, 114 N. Y. 140; 3 L. R. A. 859; 21 N. E. 105. (The agent was to receive fifteen dollars for each " order " taken. It was held proper to show that "order " meant at least five volumes of the encyclopaedia taken and paid for.)

10 Dorris v. King (Tenn. Ch. App), 54 S. W. 683.

11 Elwood v. McDill, 105 Ia. 437; 75 N. W. 340.

12 Thompson v. Pruden, 18 Ohio C. C. 886.

13 Louisville, etc., Ry. v. Ry., 174 111. 448; 51 N. E. 824.

14 Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Ry., 113 Wis. 161; 89 N. W. 180; (whether in view of the context, it included a system of interlocking switches).

15 Dixon v. Ry., 110 Ga. 173; 35 S. E. 369.