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 can not be reconciled with the printed the written provisions control,1 at least if there is no evidence tending to show that the printed provisions express the real intentions of the parties.2 The written parts are "the immediate language and terms selected by the parties themselves for the expression of their meaning.3 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.4 The same principle applies where a contract has been filled in in writing upon the blanks in a typewritten form.5 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,6 and the two provisions will be construed together if possible.7 If the two provisions are reconcilable they will be construed together and neither will give way to the other.8 If a printed contract contains a provision excusing delay in delivery for strikes, fires, and the like, and the blank for the date of delivery is not filled in, a written addition to the contract fixing the date of delivery and providing for a forfeiture of a certain amount per day, for default in delivery, is not inconsistent with the provision for excusing delivery in the case of strikes, fires, and the like.9

5 Fisk Mining & Milling Co. v. Reed, 32 Colo. 506, 77 Pac. 240.

6 Jones v. Gammel-Statesraan Publishing Co., 100 Tex. 320, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1197, 09 S. W. 701.

7 LawIer v. Murphy, 58 Conn. 294, 8 L R. A. 113, 20 Atl. 457; Haines v. Dearborn, 199 Pa. St. 474. 49 Atl. 319.

8 Haines v. Dearborn, 199 Pa, St. 474, 49 Atl. 319.

9 Stubblefield v. Imbler, 33 Or. 446, 54 Pac. 198.

10 Norfolk, etc., Co. v. Arnold, 64 N. J. L. 254, 45 Atl. 608 [reversing, 44 Atl. 192].

1 England. Alsager v. Dock Co., 14 M. & W. 794; Robertson v. French, 4 East 130.

United States. Hagan v. Ins. Co., 186 U. S. 423, 46 L. ed. 1229; Thomas v. Taggart. 209 U. S. 385, 52 L. ed. 845; Lipschitz v. Napa Fruit Co., 223 Fed. 098. 139 C. C. A. 228.

Alabama. Thornton v. R. R., 84 Ala. 109. 5 Am. St. Rep. 337. 4 So. 197.

Illinois. Adams Express Co. v. Pinckney. 29 111. 392: People v. Dulaney. 96 111. 503; Holmes v. Parker, 125 111. 478, 17 N. E. 759 [affinn-ing, 25 111. App. 225]; Summers V.

Hibbard, 153 111. 102, 46 Am. St. Rep. 872, 38 N. E. 899; Chicago v. Weir, 103 111. 582, 46 N. E. 725 [affirming, 67 111. App. 2471.

Iowa. Urbany v. Carroll, 176 la. 217, 157 N. W. 852; Commercial National Bank v. May, - la. - ", 174 X. W. 646.

Michigan. Mansfield Machine Works v. Lowell. 62.Mich. 546, 29 N. W. 105.

Minnesota. Frost's, etc., Co. v. Ins. Co.. 37 Minn. 300, 5 Am. St. Rep. 846, 34 N. W. 35; Murray v. Pillsbury, 59 Minn. 85. 60 ST. W. 844.

Nebraska. Union Pacific Ry. v. Graddy, 25 Neb. 849, 41 N. W. 809; Davis v. Creamery Co., 48 Neb. 471, 67 N. W. 436; First National Bank v. Greenlee, 102 Neb. 180, L. R. A. 1918D, 224, 166 N. W. 559.

New York. Hcyn v. New York Life Insurance Co., 192 N. Y. 1, 84 N. E. 725.

Nevada. Eager v. Mathewson, 27 Nev. 220, 74 Pac. 404.

Oklahoma. West v. Tilley, 57 Okla. 315, 157 Pa. St. 283.

Pennsylvania. Duffield v. Hue, 129 Pa. St. 94. 18 Atl. 566; Dick v. Ireland, 130 Pa. St. 299, 18 Atl. 735; Commonwealth, etc., Co. v. Ellis, 192 Pa. St. 321, 73 Am. St. Rep. 816, 43 Atl. 1034.

West Virginia. Gabbert v. Edwards Oil Co.. 76 W. Va. 718, 86 S. E. 671.

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

If a printed blank form of note provides "pay to the order of" and the blank is filled in with the name of the payee and the word "only," the written word "only" prevails over the printed words and the note is non-negotiable. First National Bank v. Greenlee, 102 Neb. 180, L. R. A. 1918D. 224 166 N. W, 550.

2 Lipschitz v. Napa Fruit Co., 223 Fed. 698, 139 C. C. A. 228.

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

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

5Sprague Electric Co. v. Hennepin County, 83 Minn. 262, 86 N. W. 332.

If typewriting is used to fill blanks in a printed form, and part of such typewriting is marked out, and a corresponding part written above with a pen, the handwriting prevails over the typewriting. Acme Coal Co. v. North-rup National Bank, 23 Wyom. 66, L. R. A. 1915D, 1084, 146 Pac. 593.

6 Eastern Bridge & Structural Co. v. Curtis Building Co., 89 Conn. 571, 94 Atl. 921; Frost, etc., Co. v. Ins. Co., 37 Minn. 300, 5 Am. St. Rep. 846, 34 N. W. 35; Hardie-Tynes Foundry & Machine Co. v. Glen Allen Oil Mill, 84 Miss. 259, 36 So. 262.

7 Eastern Bridge & Structural Co. v. Curtis Building Co., 89 Conn. 571, 94 Atl. 921; J. B. Ehrsam & Sons Mfg.

The rule that the written parts of a contract prevail over the printed parts, has been adopted by statute in some jurisdictions.10 Such statute has been held to apply to the contracts of public corporations which by statute must be in writing.11 Under such statute the rule that the written portions control the printed portions takes precedence over the rule that the first of two contradictory provisions will prevail.12 The value of the rule that the first provision of a contract should prevail over a subsequent provision is very doubtful,13 and if it is to be recognized at all, it should be recognized as inferior in value to the other more substantial rule for ascertaining the intentions of the parties.

It is ordinarily easier to make a mistake in writing figures than in writing words, and for this reason it has been held that if there is an inconsistency between an amount as expressed in words and an amount as expressed in figures, the contract will not be regarded as invalid for uncertainty and the amount as expressed in words "will prevail over the amount as expressed in figures.14 This rule naturally applies most frequently to cases in which the contract is one for the payment of money.15 It has been used as a reason for rejecting marginal annotations in figures in favor of words in the body of the instrument.16

Co. v. Jackman, 73 Kan. 435, 85 Pac. 559, 91 Pac. 4S6; Hardie, etc, Co. v. Oil Mill, 84 Miss. 259, 30 So. 2C>2.

8 Gabbert v. Edwards Oil Co., 76 W. Va. 718, 86 S. E. 671.

9 Hardie Tynes Foundry & Machine Co. v. Glen Allen Oil Mill, 84 Miss. 259, 36 So. 262.

10 Urbany v. Carroll, 176 la. 217, 157 N. W. 852.

11 Urbany v. Carroll, 176 la. 217, 157 N. W. 852.

12 Urbany v. Carroll, 176 Ia. 217, 157 N. W. 852.

13 See Sec. 2037.

14 United Surety Co. v. Summers, 110 Md. 95, 72 Atl. 775; Romine v. Haag (Mo.), 17S S. W. 147.

15Romine v. Haag (Mo.), 178 S. W. 147.

16 Fisk v. McNeal, 23 Neb. 726, 8 Am. St. Rep. 162, 37 N. W. 616.