If abbreviations are used in a written contract, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that they have a meaning in the trade or business to which the subject of the contract relates which is generally recognized and understood among those familiar with such trade or business.1 Thus extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the meaning of "S/87 wheat,"2 "C. L. R. P. oats,"3 "stripped and sample warranted # 208,"4 "O. K.,"5 "K. D. and released,"1 "Care R. R. agt. Callahan,"7 or that "c/o W & A" means "care of Western and Atlantic."8 Extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that the character "#" is used as indicating pounds.9 The meaning of the abbreviation must be understood by both parties, however, if the court is to adopt such meaning as that intended by the parties. Thus "L. & 0. Ex. $20 E. R. val" can not be shown to mean "leaks and outs excepted $20 railroad valuation," unless such meaning was known to the shipper as well as to the railroad.10 Even if the contract is one which by the Statute of Frauds must be proved by writing, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the meaning of abbreviations.11

15 Fairly v. Wappoo Mills, 44 S. Car. 227, 29 L. R. A. 215, 22 S. E. 108.

16 East Birmingham Land Co. v. Dennis, 85 Ala. 565, 7 Am. St. Rep. 73, 2 L. R. A. 836, 5 So. 317.

1 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Collins, 45 Kan. 88, 10 L. R. A. 515, 25 Pac. 187.

2 Carland v. Telegraph Co.. 118 Mich. 369, 74 Am. St. Rep. 394, 43 L. R. A. 280, 76 N. W. 762.

1 Georgia. Louisville & Nashville Ry. v. Southern Flour & Grain Co., 136 Ga. 538, 71 S. E. 88-1.

Illinois. McChesney v. Chicago, 173 111. 75, 50 N. E. 191.

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

Kansas. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Collins, 45 Kan. 88, 10 L. R. A. 515, 25 Pac. 187.

Minnesota. Maurin v. Lyon. 69 Minn. 257, 65 Am. St. Rep. 568, 72 N. W. 72; Lempert Lumber Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry., 127 Minn. 195, 149 N. W. 133.

Missouri Springfield First National

Bank v. Fricks, 75 Mo. 178, 42 Am. Rep. 397.

North Dakota. State v. McKone, 31 X. D. 547, 154 N. W. 256.

Oregon. Schucking v. Young, 78 Or. 483, 153 Pac. 803.

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

2 Berry v. Kowalsky, 95 Cal. 134, 29 Am. St. Rep. 101, 27 Pac. 286, 30 Pac. 202.

3 Wilson v. Coleman, 81 Ga. 297, 6 S. E. 693. ("Car Loads Rust Proof Oats.")

4 Conestoga Cigar Co. v. Finke, 144 Pa. St. 159. 13 L. R. A. 438, 22 Atl. 868. (In a sale of tobacco.)

5 Penn Tobacco Co. v. Leeman, 109 Ga. 428, 34 S. E. 679. (To show it amounts to a guaranty.)

6 Mouton v. Ry., 128 Ala. 537, 29 So. 602.

7 Savannah, etc., R. R. v. Collins, 77 Ga. 376, 4 Am. St. Rep. 87, 3 S. E. 416. (To show that the railroad was to deliver the goods to the agent of another company at Collahan.)