If terms of a contract appear on their face to be inserted for the benefit of one of the parties, he will be considered as having inserted such terms and as having chosen the language thereof. Any ambiguity in such language is therefore to be construed more strongly against the party making use of such language.1 If one party draws the contract and the adversary party has no choice in the selection of the words used or in the arrangements of the sentences or in the punctuation, any ambiguity is to be resolved in favor of the party who did not prepare the contract.2 The rule is sometimes stated in such a form as to imply that the promisee is the party for whose benefit ambiguous provisions are to be construed.3 Occasionally the party under whose supervision a contract is drawn rather than the party for whose benefit the provision was inserted, is regarded as the party against whom the contract is to be construed most strictly.4 Prom the nature of the case, however, the party for whose benefit ambiguous provisions are inserted is usually the party under whose supervision the contract or at least that part of the contract was drawn. As a rule no practical difference in result follows from these different methods of stating the general rule. This rule is summarized in the maxim: "Fortius contra proferentem."

24 Carper v. United Fuel Gas Co., 78 W. Va. 433, L. R. A. 1917A, 171, 89 S. E. 12.

25Carper v. United Fuel Gas Co., 78 W. Va. 433, L. R. A. 1917A, 171, 89 S. E. 12.

1 United States. Chambers v. United States, 24 Ct. Cl. 387; Simpson v. United States, 31 Ct. Cl. 217; Supreme Council, etc., v. Casualty Co., 63 Fed. 48, 11 C. C. A. 96; Davis, etc., Co. v. Jones, 66 Fed. 124; Christian v. First National Bank, 155 Fed. 705, 84 C. C. A. 53; Bijur Motor Lighting Co. v. Eclipse Machine Co., 237 Fed. 89; Hongkong & Whampoa Dock Co., Ltd. v. United States, 50 Ct. Cl. 213.

Arkansas. Leslie v. Bell, 73 Ark. 338, 84 S. W. 491; Allen-West Com-mission Co. v. People's Bank, 74 Ark. 41, 84 S. W. 1041.

Colorado. Wyatt v. Irrigation Co., 18 Colo. 298, 36 Am. St. Rep. 280, 33 Pac. 144.

Georgia. Hill v. Mfg. Co., 79 Ga. 105, 3 S. E. 445; Young v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 120 Ga. 25, 102 Am. St. Rep. 68, 65 L. R. A. 436, 47 S. E. 666.

Illinois. Mueller v. University, 195 111. 236, 88 Am. St. Rep. 194, 63 N. E.

110 [affirming, 95 111. App. 258].

Indiana. Rogers v. Ins. Co., 121 Ind. 570, 23 N. E. 498.

Iowa. Sinclair v. National Surety Co., 132 la. 549, 107 N. W. 184.

Kentucky. Bowser v. Patrick (Ky.), 65 S. W. 824; General Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Louisville Home Telephone Co., 175 Ky. 96, L. R. A. 1917D, 952, 193 S. W. 1031.

Louisiana. St. Landry State Bank v. Meyers, 52 La. Ann. 1769, 28 So. 136.

Maryland. McEvoy v. Security F. Ins. Co., 110 Md. 275, 22 L. R. A. (N.S.) 964, 73 Atl. 157.

Mississippi. Home Mutual Fire In-surancc Co. v. Pittman, 111 Miss. 420, 71 So. 739.

Montana. Blankenship v. Decker, 34 Mont. 292, 85 Pac. 1035.

Nebraska. Jensen v. Palatine Insurance Co., 81 Neb. 523, 116 N. W. 286; Falloon v. Miles, 102 Neb. 843, 2 A. L. R. 840, 170 N. W. 191.

New York. Paul v. Ins. Co., 112 N. Y. 472, 8 Am. St. Rep. 758, 3 L. R. A. 443, 20 N. E. 347; Rickerson v. Ins. Co., 149 N. Y. 307, 313, 43 N. E. 856; Gillett v. Bank, 160 N. Y. 549, 55 N. E. 292.

North Carolina. Kendrick v. Ins. Co., 124 N. Car. 315, 70 Am. St. Rep.

Thus a contract of sale has been construed more strictly against the vendor; 5 a contract to repair more strictly against the builder who drew it;6 restrictions on a carrier's common-law liability more strictly against the carrier;7 exceptions8 and conditions in an insurance policy more strictly against the insurer.9 A qualification in favor of the insured which follows a list of exceptions in a policy of insurance in favor of the insurer, will be construed as applying to all of such exceptions.10

592, 32 S. E. 728; Torrey v. Cannon, 171 N. Car. 519, 88 S. E. 768; Bank v. Redwine, 171 N. Car. 559, 88 S. E. 878; Edwards v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 173 N. Car. 614, 92 S. E. 695.

Ohio. Webster v. Ins. Co., 53 O. S. 558, 53 Am. St. Rep. 658, 30 L. R. A. 719, 42 N. E. 546.

Oklahoma. Reeves v. Martin, 20 Okla. 558, 94 Pac. 1058; Warner v. Page, - Okla. - , 159 Pac. 264.

Oregon. Loomis v. MacFarlane, 50 Or. 129, 91 Pac. 466.

South Dakota. M. Osborne & Co. v. Springham, 4 S. D. 593, 57 N. W. 776.

A contract for professional compensation which is drawn by the attorney by whom such compensation is to be paid, will be construed against such attorney if ambiguous. Falloon v. Miles, 102 Neb. 843, 2 A. L. R. 840, 170 N. W. 191.

This rule has been adopted by statute in some jurisdictions. Blankenship v. Decker, 34 Mont. 292, 85 Pac. 1035.

2 Allen-West Commission Co. v. People's Bank, 74 Ark. 41, 84 S. W. 1041; General Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Louisville Home Telephone Co., 175 Ky. 96, L. R. A. 1917D, 952, 193 S. W. 1031.

3 Torrey v. Cannon, 171 N. Car. 519, 88 S. E. 768.

4 Bijur Motor Lighting Co. v. Eclipse Machine Co., 237 Fed. 89.

5 Delogny v. Mercer, 43 La. Ann. 205, 8 So. 903.

6 Laidlaw v. Marye, 133 Cal. 170, 65 Pac. 391.

7 Texas, etc., Ry. v. Reiss, 183 U. S. 621, 46 L. ed. 358; Hinkle v. Ry., 126 N. Car. 932, 78 Am. St. Rep. 685, 36 S. E. 348; Amory Mfg. Co. v. Ry., 89 Tex. 419, 59 Am. St. Rep. 65, 37 S. W. 856.

8 Starr v. Aetna Ins. Co., 41 Wash. 199, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 636, 83 Pac. 113.

9 United States. First National Bank v. Ins. Co.. 95 U. S. 673, 24 L. ed. 563; London Assurance Co. v. Compan-hia de Moagens, 167 U. S. 149, 42 L. ed. 113.

If performance is optional as to one party, the contract is construed strictly against the party at whose option performance may be required and in favor of the party from whom performance may be required at the option of the adversary party.11 The rule of a construction strictly against one party and in favor of the other, has been applied to contracts between public corporations and private individuals so as to require a construction in favor of the public corporation;12 although in many cases such a contract is drawn by the public corporation and the language therein is inserted by such public corporation for its own benefit.