If the contract is written in part and printed in part, as where it has been filled in upon a printed form, the parties usually pay much more attention to the written parts than to the printed parts. Accordingly if the written provisions cannot be reconciled with the printed the written provisions control.1 The written parts are "the immediate language and terms selected by the parties themselves for the expression of their meaning,"2 and accordingly must control in case of conflict. Thus where in a land contract the written and printed portions are at variance as to the character of deed to be given the written controls.3

The same principle applies where a contract has been filled in in writing upon the blanks in a type-written form.4 The written part will, however, prevail only in so far as the intention of the parties to modify the printed portion by the written can fairly be inferred,5 and the two provisions will be construed together if possible.6

8 Norfolk, etc., Co. v. Arnold, 64 N. J. 254; 45 Atl. 608; reversing, 44 Atl. 192.

1 Alsager v. Dock Co., 14 M. & W. 794; Robertson v. French, 4 East 130; Hagan v. Ins. Co., 186 U. S. 423; Thornton v. E. R., 84 Ala. 109; 5 Am. St. Rep. 337; 4 So. 197; Chicago v. Weir, 165 111. 582; 46 N. E. 725; affirming, 67 111. App. 247; Summers v. Hibbard, 153 111. 102; 46 Am. St. Rep. 872; 38 N. E. 899; Holmes v. Parker, 125 111. 478; 17 N. E. 759; affirming, 25 111. App. 225; People v. Dulaney, 96 111. 503; Adams Express Co. v. Pinckney, 29 111. 392; Mansfield Machine Works v. Lowell, 62 Mich. 546; 29 N. W. 105; Murray v. Pillsbury. 59 Minn. 85; 60 N. W. 844; Frost's, etc., Co. v. Ins. Co., 37 Minn. 300; 5 Am. St.

Rep. 846; 34 N. W. 35; Davis v. Creamery Co., 48 Neb. 471; 67 N. W. 436; Union Pacific Ry. v. Grad-dy, 25 Neb. 849; 41 N. W. 809; Eager v. Mathewson, - Nev. - ; 74 Pac. 404; Commonwealth, etc., Co. v. Ellis, 192 Pa. St. 321; 73 Am. St. Pep. 816; 43 Atl. 1034; Dick v. Ireland, 130 Pa. St. 299; 18 Atl. 735; Duffield v. Hue, 129 Pa. St. 94; 18 Atl. 566; Gilbert v. Stockman, 76 Wis. 62; 20 Am. St. Rep. 23; 44 N. W. 845.

2 Summers v. Hibbard, 153 111. 102. 109; 46 Am. St. Rep. 872; 38 N. E. 899.

3 Gilbert v. Stockman, 76 Wis. 62; 20 Am. St. Rep. 23; 44 N. W. 845.

4 Sprague Electric Co. v. Hennepin County, 83 Minn. 262; 86 N. W. 332.