The construction of a contract is a question for the court if the terms of the contract and the extrinsic facts which may affect construction are free from dispute.1 This rule applies

3 Lull v. Bank, 110 Ia. 537; 81 N. W. 784.

4 Cobb v. McElroy, 79 Ia. 603; 44 N. W. 824.

5 Pattern v. Arney, 95 Ia. 664; 64 N. W. 635.

6 Dobbins v. Cragin, 50 N. J. Eq. 640; 23 Atl. 172.

7 Dobbins v. Cragin, 50 N. J. Eq. 640; 23 Atl. 172.

8 Crass v. Scruggs. 115 Ala. 258; 22 So. 81; Rouss v. Creglow, 103 Ia. 60; 72 N. W. 429.

9 Crass v. Scruggs, 115 Ala. 258; 22 So. 81.

1 Vickera v. Commercial Co., 67 N. J. L. 665: 52 Atl. 467: Wisconsin, etc., Bank v. Wilkin, 95 Wis. 1ll; 60 Am. St. Rep. 86; 69 X. W. 354.

1 McFadden v. Henderson. 128 Ala. 221: 29 So. 640: Arkansas Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilson. 67 Ark. 553: 77 Am. St. Rep. 129; 48 L. R. A. 510; 55 S. W. 933; McLelland v. Single-tary, 113 Ga. 601; 38 S. E. 942; where the written contract consists of several writings, as where it consists of letters exchanged between the parties,2 or of a circular issued by a building and loan association in reliance on which stock has been taken.3 It applies where the written contract has been lost and its contents are proved by secondary evidence.4 It applies to contracts part oral and part written5 or to contracts entirely oral,6 if the facts from which the terms of the contract are to be ascertained are undisputed and only one inference is possible therefrom. The construction of a contract is for the court even if the jury is to pass on the question of its discharge by a later contract.7 Thus the court must in such cases decide by what law the contract is governed in case of a so-called conflict of law;8 whether a contract is illegal;9 whether a written instrument purports on its face to be a complete contract.10 If, on the other hand, the terms of the contract are in dispute, or it is possible to draw more than one inference from the established facts which are relied on to show the intention of the parties, the jury must determine such facts or decide which of such inferences is the correct one. The court should in such cases submit the question of fact to the jury under proper alternative instructions as to the construction to be given in the event of each possible finding of fact by the jury.11 This rule applies in written contracts where the admissible extrinsic evidence is conflicting or admits of different inferences.12 Thus where the evidence is conflicting as to the meaning of a technical term in dispute,13 or where questions as to what are "traveling expenses,"14 or what is a reasonable amount of "printed matter and samples,"15 depend on conflicting extrinsic evidence, the jury must determine the intention of the parties. So if the question is which of two unidentified plans is referred to in a written contract, this should be submitted to the jury.16 This rule applies where the terms of a contract partly written and partly oral 17 or entirely oral are in dispute.

Traders', etc., Ins. Co. v. Humphrey, 207 111. 540; 69 N. E. 875; affirming, 109 111. App. 246; Foster v. Chicago, 197 111. 264; 64 N. E. 322; affirming, 96 111. App. 4; Illinois Central Ry. Co. v. Foulks, 191 111. 57; 60 N. E. 890; affirming, 92 111. App. 391; Ault Wooden-Ware Co. v. Baker, 26 Ind. App. 374; 58 N. E. 265; Grasmier v. Wolf (Ia.), 90 N. W. 813; Sherk v. Holmes, 125 Mich. 118; 83 N. W. 1016; McClurg v. Whitney, 82 Mo. App. 625; Hin-man v. Mfg. Co., 65 Neb. 187; 90 N. W. 934; McCormick, etc., Co. v. Davis, 61 Neb. 406; 85 N. W. 390; Battler v. Hallock, 160 N. Y. 291; 73 Am. St. Hep. 686; 46 L. R. A. 679; 54 N. E. 667; Brite v. Mfg. Co., 129 N. C. 34: 39 S. E. 634; Keefer v. School District, 203 Pa. St. 334; 52 Atl. 245; Leaphart v. Bank, 45 S. C. 563; 55 Am. St. Rep. 800; 33 L. R. A. 700; 23 N. E. 939; Hughes v. Rudy, 15 S. D. 460; 90 N. W. 136; Amory Mfg. Co. v. Gulf, etc., R. R. Co., 89 Tex. 419; 59 Am. St. Rep 55; 37 S. W. 856.

2 canlan v. Hodges, 52 Fed. 354; 3 C. C. A. 113; Lindsay v. Ins. Co., 115 N. C. 212; 20 S. E. 370; De Camps v. Carpin, 19 S. C. 121; Teas-dale v. Manchester, 104 Tenn. 267; 56 S. W. 853; Ranney v. Higby, 5 Wis. 62.

3 Williamson v. Loan Association, 54 S. C. 582; 71 Am. St. Rep. 822; 32 S. E. 765.

4 Wellman v. Jones, 124 Ala. 580; 27 So. 416.

5 Sea Insurance Co. v. Johnston, 105 Fed. 286; 44 C. C. A. 477.

6 The "construction of an oral as well as of a written contract is for the court." Penn, etc., Insurance Co. v. Crane, 134 Mass. 56, 58; 45 Am. Rep. 282.

7 Danziger v. Shoe Co., 204 111. 145; 68 N. E. 534; affirming, 107 111. App. 47.

8 Demland v. Loan Co., 20 Ohio C. C. 223; 11 Ohio C. D. 249.

9 Carpenter v. Taylor, 164 N. Y. 171; 58 N. E. 53.

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