Usages,1 such as those of a trade,2 may be resorted to, to show the special meanings of words. Evidence of a local usage as to the meaning of the word

22 Louisville, etc., Ry. v. Ry., 174 111. 448, 51 N. E. 824.

23 Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Ry., 113 Wis. 161, 89 N. W. 180 (whether in view of the context, it included a system of interlocking switches).

24 Dixon v. Ry., 110 Ga. 173, 35 S. E. 369.

25 Morris v. Heliums Co., 131 Ark. 585, 199 S. W. 927.

26J. C. Lysle Milling Co. v. North Alabama Grocery Co., - Ala. - , 77 So. 748.

27 Becker v. Incorporated Town of Churdan, 175 la. 159, 157 N. W. 221.

28 Eoff v. Lair, - Okla. - , 163 Pac. 515.

29 Griffith v. Dowd, 133 Minn. 305, 158 IT. W. 420.

30 Buckbee v. Hohenadel, 224 Fed. 14, L. R. A. 1916C, 1001.

1 United States. Metropolitan Exhibition Co. v. Ewing, 42 Fed. 198, 7

L. K. A. 38l.

Alabama. Lutz v. Van Heynigen Brokerage Co.', - Ala. - , 75 So. 284.

California, Shean v. Weeks, 176 Cal. 592, 169 Pac. 231 (obiter).

Maine. Ross v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 114 Me. 287, 96 Atl. 223.

Minnesota. Paine & Nixon Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 135 Minn. 9, 159 N. W. 1075.

Virginia. Walker v. Gateway Milling Co., 121 Va. 217, 92 S. E. 826.

Washington. Cormier v. H. H. Martin Lumber Co., 98 Wash. 463, 167 Pac. 1105.

For the elements of usage, see Eames v. H. B. Claflin Co., 239 Fed. 631, 152 C. C. A. 465.

2 California. Gardiner v. McDonogh, 147 Cal. 313, 81 Pac. 964.

Indiana. Hoerger v. Sidway Mercantile Co., 183 Ind. 610, 109 N. E. 770.

Kansas. Seymour v. Armstrong, 62 Kan. 720, 64 Pac. 612 [affirming, 10 Kan. App. 10, 61 Pac. 675].

Minnesota. Paine & Nixon Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 135 Minn. 9, 159 N. W. 1075.

New York. Smith v. Clews, 114 N. Y. 190, 11 Am. St. Rep. 627, 4 L. R. A. 392, 21 N. E. 160.

Washington. Cormier v. H. H. Martin Lumber Co., 98 Wash. 463, 167 Pac. 1105.

Under a contract for compensation on a commission, evidence of local usage in that business is admissible to show whether traveling expenses are included or not. Himmel v. Levinstein, 132 Md. 317, 103 Atl. 848.

If a contract provides for paying compensation on a commission basis on "regular prices and regular terms," and the contract does not show what "cord" in a sale of cedar posts is admissible.3 Evidence of a trade usage as to "subject to strikes" in a contract for the sale of coal;4 or as to "winter wheat bran";5 or as to "on approval" in the diamond trade; 6 or that "peas" is a trade-name for a white bean; 7 that "per 100" means "pounds";8 that "8105 pd." refers to the number of a note on the note register of the bank;9 that in a memorandum of prices of stock "H." means "high," 10 and "L." means low;11 that "gross 818, tare 318, net 600," refer to hundredweight and not to pounds,12 or as to the meaning of the expression "per thousand brick measure."18

If the meaning of a written contract is clear, a trade usage can not change the meaning of the words, or add incidents so as to contradict the meaning.14 Thus a contract with a broker for the sale of certain articles, "seller paying brokerage at ten cents per ton," can not be contradicted to cut down the broker's recovery by showing a usage to pay commissions only on the amount delivered.15 No usage can be invoked to change rules of law. Thus a usage among brokers that stock certificates are negotiable is invalid.11 such prices and such terms are, evidence is admissible to show the meaning of such term. Hoerger v. Sidway Mercantile Co., 183 Ind. 610, 109 N. E. 770.

A custom of plumbers as to the use of the term "roughing in," is not binding upon persons who deal with plumbers unless they have knowledge of such custom. Donaldson v. Brewster, 103 Wash. 65, 173 Pac. 1018.

Evidence is admissible to explain "heater charges." Ross v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 114 Me. 287, 96 Atl. 223.

Evidence is admissible to show the customary meaning of "straight time" in a contract of employment, and such meaning is then a question of fact. Cormier v. H. H. Martin Lumber Co., 98 Wash. 463, 167 Pac. 1105.

A customary meaning which attaches when a certain form of contract is used does not attach when the name term is used in a different form of contract. Hart v. Hammett Grocery Co., 132 Ark. 197, 200 S. W. 795.

3 McManus v. Louden, 53 Minn. 339, 55 N. W. 139. (Evidence here insufficient to vary the popular meaning.)

4 Hesser, etc., Co. v. Fuel Co., 114 Wis. 654, 90 N. W. 1094 (that is, whether local or general strikes were intended).

5 Walker v. Gateway Milling Co., 121 Va. 217, 92 S. E. 826.

6 Smith v. Clews, 114 N. Y. 190, 11 Am. St. Rep. 627, 4 L. R. A. 392, 21 N. E. 160.

7 Gardiner v. McDonogh, 147 Cal. 313, 81 Pac. 964.

8 Gardiner v. McDonogh, 147 Cal. 313, 81 Pac. 964.

9 Kossuth County Bank v. Richardson, 141 la. 738, 118 N. W. 906.

10 Holbrook v. Quinlan, 84 Vt. 411, 80 Atl. 339.

11 Holbrook v. Quinlan. 84 Vt. 411, 80 Atl. 339.

12 Lampert Lumber Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry., 127 Minn. 195, 149 N. W. 133.

13 Paine & Nixon Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 135 Minn. 9, 159 N. W. 1075.

14 Allen v. Nothern, 121 Ark. 150, 180 S. W. 465; Deacon v. Mattison, 11 N. D. 190, 91 N. W. 35.