If a contract is ambiguous in meaning, the practical construction put upon it by the parties thereto is of great weight, even though the contract is in writing,1 and, ordinarily, is controlling.2 Thus the practical construction by the parties may determine whether an ambiguous instrument is a partnership

1 Richelieu Hotel Co. v. Encampment Co., 140 IlI 248; 33 Am. St. Rep. 234; 29 N. E. 1044; Gran v. Spangenberg. 53 Minn. 42; 54 N. W. 933; Monmouth Park Association v. Iron Works, 55 N. J. L. 132; 39 Am. St. Rep. 626, 19 L. R. A. 456; 26 Atl. 140; Sisson v. Donnelly, 36 N. J. L. 432.

2 Richelieu Hotel Co. v. Encampment Co., 140 111 248; 33 Am. St. Rep. 234; 29 N. E. 1044.

3 Boykin v. Bank, 72 Ala. 262; 47 Am. Rep. 408.

4 Gran v. Spangenberg, 53 Minn. 42; 54 N. W. 933.

5 Monmouth Park Association v. Iron Works, 55 N. J. L. 132; 39 Am. St. Rep. 626; 19 L. R. A. 456; 26 Atl. 140.

6 Siegel, etc., Co. v. Colby, 176 111. 210; 52 N. E. 917; affirming. 61 111. App. 315.

7 Bettman v. Harness, 42 W. Va. 433; 36 L. R. A. 566.

8 Berry v. Kowalsky, 95 Cal. 134; 29 Am. St. Rep. 101; 30 Pac. 202.

9 Harrison v. McCormick. 89 Cal. 327; 23 Am. St. Rep. 469; 26 Pac. 830.

1 Chicago v. Sheldon, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 50, 54; Fitzgerald v. Bank, 114 Fed. 474; 52 C. C. A. 276; Interstate Land Co. v. Land Grant Co., 41 Fed. 275; Pacific, etc., Co. v. Leete, 94 Fed. 968; 36 C. C. A. 587; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Wright, 126 Fed. 82; Bobbins v. Kimball, 55 Ark. 414; 29 Am. St. Rep. 45; 18 S. W. 457; Hill v. McKay, 94 Cal. 5; 29 Pac. 406; Wyatt v. Irrigation Co., 18 Colo. 298; 36 Am. St. Rep. 280; 33 Pac. 144; Board of Commissioners v. Gibson, 158 Ind. 471; 63 N. E. 982; Smith v. Miami County, 6 Ind. App. 153; 33 N. E. 243; Pratt v. Prouty, 104 Ia. 419; 65 Am. St. Rep. 472; 73 N. W. 1035; City of Baxter Springs v. Power Co., 64 Kan. 591; 68 Pac. 63; McVickar v. Denison, 81 Mich. 348; 45 N. W. 659; Switzer v. Mfg. Co., 59 Mich. 488; 26 N. W. 762; Laten-ser v. Misner, 56 Neb. 340; 76 N. W. 897; Rathbun v. McConnell, 27 Neb. 239; 42 N. W. 1042; Sattler v. Hallock, 160 N. Y. 291; 73 Am. St. Rep. 686; 46 L. R. A. 679; 54 N. E. 667; Williamson v. Loan Association, 54 S. C. 582; 71 Am. St. Rep. 822; 32 S. E. 765; Murray v. Mfg. Co., 37 S. C. 468; 16 S. E. 143; Blood v. Elevator Co., 1 S. D. 71; 45 N. W. 200; Clark v. Lambert, -W. Va. - ; 47 S. E. 312; Heatherly v. Bank, 31 W. Va. 70; 5 S. E. 754; Wussow v. Hase, 108 Wis. 382; 84 N. W. 433; Janesville Cotton Mills v. Ford, 82 Wis. 416; 17 L. R. A. 564; 52 N. W. 764.

2 Topliff v. Topliff, 122 U. S. 121; Philadelphia, etc., Ry. v. Trimble. 10 Wall. (U. S.) 367; State Trust Co. v. Duluth, 104 Fed. 632; Lyman v. Ry., 101 Fed. 636; Housekeeper Publishing Co. v. Swift, 97 Fed. 290; 38 C. C. A. 187; Russell v. Young, 94 Fed. 45; 36 C. C. A. 71; Robbins v. Kimball, 55 Ark. 414; 29 Am. St. Rep. 45; 18 S. W. 457; Wyatt v. Irrigation Co., 18 Colo. 298; 36 Am. St. Rep. 280; 33 Pac. 144; Buckeye, etc., Co. v. Carlson, - Colo. App. - ; 66 Pac. 168; Shouse v. Doane, 39 Fla. 95; 21 So. 807; Webster v. Clark, 34 Fla. 637; 43 Am. St. Rep. 217; 27 L. R. A. 126; 16 So. 601; Mueller v. University, 195 111. 236; 88 Am. St. Rep. 194; 63 N. E. 110; affirming, 95 111. App. 258; Work v. Welsh, 160 111. 468; 43 N. E. 719; Street v. Storage Co., 157 111. 605; 41 N. E. 1108; Hall v. Bank, 133 111. 234;

24 N. E. 546; Cambria Iron Co. v. Trust Co., 154 Ind. 291; sab nomine Union Trust Co. v. Ry., 48 L. R. A. 41; 55 N. E. 745; 56 N. E. 665; Vincennes v. Gas Light Co., 132 Ind. 114; 16 L. R. A. 485; 31 N. E. 573; Ingle v. Norrington, 126 Ind. 174;

25 N. E. 900; Pate v. French, 122 Ind. 10; 23 N. E. 673; Smith v. Miami Co., 6 Ind. App. 153; 33 N. E. 243; Pratt v. Prouty, 104 Ia. 419; 65 Am. St. Rep. 472; 73 N. W. 1035; Enterprise Carriage Mfg. Co. v. Cruzan, 63 Kan. 411; 65 Pac. 647; Citizens', etc., Co. v. Doll, 35 Md. 89; 6 Am. Rep. 360; Fogg v. Ins. Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 337; Burtis v. Munising Co., 126 Mich. 685; 86 N. W. 124; Luverne First National Bank v. Jagger, 41 Minn. 308; 43 N. W. 70; Ellis v. Harrison, 104 Mo. 270; 16 S. W. 198; Williamson v. Ry., 85 Mo. App. 103; Lawton v. Fonner, 59 Neb. 214; 80 contract or not;3 whether the vendee of stock has an equal interest therein with the other parties ;4 what constitutes a "first class place of amusement ;"5 what is "any extension of time ;"6 whether the instrument in question abrogates a pre-existing contract or not ;7 and whether the instrument in question is a binding contract or not.8 So in some states, where it is doubtful whether a signature was intended to bind the agent or the principal, the subsequent conduct of the parties may be relied upon to show that it was intended to bind the principal and not the agent.9 So a city ordinance, if a contract, may be construed in the light of the practical construction placed thereon by the parties.10 The practical interpretation of the parties is to be regarded, however, only when the contract is ambiguous. If clear and free from ambiguity, the intention shown upon its face if written must be followed, though contrary to the practical interpretation by the parties,11 and even if such practical construction has been acquiesced in for a long period of time.12 The conduct of the parties relied upon as construction must itself be free from ambiguity. Thus vague and general conversations13 are of little weight. So the conduct relied upon must be that of parties personally interested or cognizant of the actual intention of the parties. Thus little if any weight can be given to a practical construction adopted by the successors in office of the public officers who made the contract on behalf of the city.14

N. W. 808; Hale v. Sheehan, 52 Neb. 184; 71 N. W. 1019; Davis v. Creamery Co., 48 Neb. 471; 67 N. W. 436; Paxton v. Smith, 41 Neb. 56; 59 N. W. 690; Dwyer v. Bonitz (N. J. Eq.), 31 Atl. 172; Helme v. Strater, 52 N. J. Eq. 591; 30 Atl. 333; Sattler v. Hallock, 160 N. Y. 291; 73 Am. St. Rep. 686; 46 L. R. A. 679; 54 N. E. 667; Woolsey v. Funk, 121 N. Y. 87; 24 N. E. 191; Methodist, etc., Society v. Water Co., 20 Ohio C. C. 578; 10 Ohio C. D. 648; Williamson v. Loan Association, 54 S. C. 582; 71 Am. St. Rep. 822; 32 S. E. 765; Murray v. Mfg. Co., 37 S. C. 468; 16 S. E. 143; Heidenheimer v. Cleveland (Tex.), 17 S. W. 524; Woodward v. Edmunds, 20 Utah 118; 57 Pac. 848; Mutual, etc., Association v. Taylor, 99 Va. 208; 37 S. E. 854; Hosmer v. McDonald, 80 Wis. 54; 49 N. W. 112. "There is no surer -way to find out what the parties meant than to see what they have done." Brooklyn Life Ins. Co. v.

Dutcher, 95 U. S. 269, 273; quoted in Sattler v. Hallock, 160 N. Y. 291, 301; 73 Am. St. Rep. 686; 46 L. R. A. 679; 54 N. E. 667.

3 Webster v. Clark, 34 Fla. 637; 43 Am. St. Rep. 217; 27 L. R. A. 126; 16 So. 601.

4 Stewart v. Pierce, 116 Ia. 733; 89 N. W. 234.

5 Leavitt v. Improvement Co., 54 Fed. 439.

6 Borden v. Fletcher's Estate, 131 Mich. 220; 91 N. W. 145.

7 Jenkins v. Jensen, 24 Utah 108; 91 Am. St. Rep. 783; 66 Pac. 773.

8 Kling v. Bordner, 65 O. S. 86; 61 N. E. 148.

9 State v. Cass County, 60 Neb. 566; 83 N. W. 733.

10 Vincennes v. Gas Light Co., 132 Ind. 114; 16 L. R. A. 485; 31 N. E. 573.

11 Philadelphia, etc., Ry. v. Trimble, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 367; Davis, v. Shafer, 50 Fed. 764; Cold Blast Transportation Co. v. Nut Co., 114 Fed. 77; 57 L. R. A. 696; 52 C. C.