The parties have inserted each provision in the contract, and accordingly, if possible, a contract should be so construed as to give effect to each provision inserted therein.1 Thus a clause in a building contract providing that no lien should be taken thereunder is not repugnant to a subsequent provision requiring the contractor to show by sufficient evidence that the premises are free of liens.2 Whether in this sense a printed heading is a part of the contract written thereunder is a question on which there seems to be some conflict. It has been held that a printed heading on an order blank may be looked to to show that the order was taken as a publisher and not as an engraver;3 while a notice on a letter head that all orders were subject to delays arising from strikes was held not a part of a contract written thereunder,4 and terms printed at the head of a bill cannot be considered as a waiver of express provisions of the written contract for the sale of such goods, which contract is contained in a letter mailed on the same day as that on which the goods are shipped.5 The rule that every part of the contract must be given effect applies to a contract that is partly written and partly oral.6

1 Pensacola Gas Co. v. Lotze, 23 Fla. 368; 2 So. 609; Lindley v. Groff, 37 Minn. 338; 34 N. W. 26; Ballou v. Sherwood, 32 Neb. 666; 49 N. W. 790; 50 N. W. 1131; Chism v. Schipper, 51 N. J. L. 1; 14 Am. St. Rep. 668; 2 L. R. A. 544; 16 Atl. 316.

2 Erickson v. United States, 107 Fed. 204; Speed v. Ry., 86 Fed. 235; 30 C. C. A. 1; Rockefeller v. Merritt, 76 Fed. 909; 35 L. R. A. 633; 22 C. C. A. 608; Stockton Savings Society v. Purvis, 112 Cal. 236; 53 Am. St. Rep. 210; 44 Pac. 561; Whalen v. Stephens, 193 111. 121; 61 N. E. 921; affirming, 92 111. App. 235; Seaver v. Thompson, 189 111. 158; 59 N. E. 553; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 150 Ind. 636; 50 N. E. 756; City of Garden City v. Heller, 61 Kan. 767; 60 Pac. 1060; Sprague Electric Co. v. Hennepin County. 83 Minn. 262; 86 N. W. 332; Chism v. Schipper, 51 N. J. L. 1; 14 Am. St.

Rep. 668; 2 L. R. A. 544; 16 Atl. 316; Arbuckle v. Kirkpatrick, 98 Tenn. 221; 60 Am. St. Rep. 854; 36 L. R. A. 285; 39 S. W. 3; Collins v. Lavelle, 44 Vt. 230.

1 First National Bank v. Ry., 36 Fla. 183; 18 So. 345; Snoqualmi Realty Co. v. Moynihan, - Mo. - ; 78 S. W. 1014; Ricketts v. Buck-staff, 64 Neb. 851; 90 N. W. 915; McGavock v. Bank, 64 Neb. 440; 90 N. W. 230; Lawton v. Fonner, 59 Neb. 214; 80 N. W. 808; Chrisman v. Ins. Co., 16 Or. 283; 18 Pac. 466; German Fire Ins. Co. v. Roost, 55 O. S. 581; 60 Am. St. Rep. 711; 36 L. R. A. 236; 45 N. E. 1097; Commonwealth, etc., Co. v. Ellis, 192 Pa. St. 321; 73 Am. St. Rep. 816; 43 Atl. 1034; Philadelphia v. River Front R. Co., 133 Pa. St. 134; 19 Atl. 356; Smith v. Smith, 33 S. C. 210; 11 S. E. 761; McKay v. Bar-nett, 21 Utah 239; 50 L. R. A. 371; 60 Pac. 1100.