If abbreviations are used in a written contract, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that they have a meaning in the trade or business to which the subject of the contract relates which is generally recognized and understood among those familiar with such trade or business.1 Thus extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the meaning of "S/87 wheat,"2 "C. L. E. P. oats,"3 "stripped and sample warranted # 208,"4 "O. K,"5 "K. D. and released,"6 "Care E. E. agt. Callahan."7 The meaning of the abbreviation must be understood by both parties, however, if the court is to adopt such meaning as that intended by the parties. Thus, "L & O Ex. $20 E. E. val." cannot be shown to mean "Leaks and outs excepted $20 railroad valuation," unless such meaning was known to the shipper as well as to the railroad.8 Even if the contract is one which by the statute of frauds must be proved by writing, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the meaning of abbreviations.9

1 McChesney v. Chicago, 173 111. 75; 50 N. E. 191; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Collins, 45 Kan. 88; 10 L. R. A. 515; 25 Pac. 187; Maurin v. Lyon, 69 Minn. 257; 65 Am. St. Rep. 568; 72 N. W. 72; Springfield First National Bank v. Tricks, 75 Mo. 178; 42 Am. Rep. 397.

2 Berry v. Kowalsky, .95 Cal. 134;

29 Am. St. Rep. 101; 27 Pac. 286;

30 Pac. 202.

3 Wilson v. Coleman, 81 Ga. 297; 6 S. E. 693; ("Car Loads Rust Proof Oats").

4 Conestoga Cigar Co. v. Finke, 144 Pa. St. 159; 13 L. R. A. 438; 22 Atl. 868; (in a sale of tobacco).

5 Penn Tobacco Co. v. Leeman, 109 Ga. 428; 34 S. E. 679: (to show it amounts to a guaranty).

6Mouton v. Ry., 128 Ala. 537; 29 So. 602.

7 Savannah, etc., R. R. v. Collins, 77 Ga. 376; 4 Am. St. Rep. 87; 3 S. E. 416. (To show that the railroad was to deliver the goods to the agent of another company at Colla-han.)

8 Rosenfeld v. Ry., 103 Ind. 121; 53 Am. Rep. 500; 2 N. E. 344.

9 Contract for the sale of realty: Melone v. Ruffino, 129 Cal. 514; 79 Am. St. Rep. 127; 62 Pac. 93. Contract for the sale of personalty: New England, etc., Co. v. Worsted Co., 165 Mass. 328; 52 Am. St. Rep. 516; 43 N. E. 112. ("F. C. Wool.") Maurin v. Lyon, 69 Minn. 257; 65 Am. St. Rep. 568; 72 N. W. 72. (In this case the written memorandum was as follows: "St. Cloud, 7-6-96. sold Maurin Bros., Cold Springs. 5000, 1-0 Jul. Del. 99 C. Duluth" and signed.)