If, on the other hand, the terms of the contract are in dispute,1 or if it is possible to draw more than one inference from the surrounding circumstances which are established by the evidence, or from other established facts to which resort may be had to ascertain the intention of the parties,2 the jury must determine such facts or decide which of such inferences is the correct one.3 Whether one who has signed an instrument as executed as a party thereto is to be determined as a question of fact by the jury.4 This rule applies where the terms of a contract partly written and partly oral,5 or entirely oral,6 or originally oral and subsequently reduced in part to writing,7 are in dispute. If the words or figures in a written contract can not be read with certainty and there is a dispute as to what such words or figures really are, the question is one for the jury.8

1 Licking Rolling Mill Co. v. Synder (Ky.), 89 8. W. 240, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 357.

2 Bell Lumber Co. v. Seaman, 136 Minn. 106, 161 N. W. 383.

3 Danziger v. Shoe Co., 204 111. 145, 68 N. E. 534 [affirming, 107 111. App. 47].

4 Georgetown Water, Gas, Electric & Power Co. v. Smith (Ky.), 30 Ky. Law. Rep. 253, 97 S. W. 1119.

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

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

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

8 Nelson v. Spence, 129 Ga. 35, 58 S. E. 697.

9 Riley v. Aetna Insurance Co., 80 W. Va. 236, L. R. A. 1917E, 983, 92 S. E. 417.

10 Kiser v. Denney, 99 Neb. 3, 154 N. W. 835; Markley v. Godfrey, 254 Pa. St. 99, 98 Atl. 785.

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

Indiana. Annadall v. Union Cement & Lime Co., 165 Ind. 110, 74 N. E. 893.

Maryland. Joseph Joseph & Bros. Co. v. Schonthal Iron & Steel Co., 99 Md. 382, 58 Atl. 205.

Massachusetts. Knowlton v. Parsons, 198 Mass. 439, 84 N. E. 798.

Michigan. McNamara v. Michigan Trust Co., 148 Mich. 346, 111 N. W. 1066.

Minnesota. O'Connell v. Ward, 130 Minn. 443, 153 N. W. 865.

Michigan. Storch v. Rose, 152 Mich. 521, 116 N. W. 402.

New Jersey. Furman v. Feibleman & Lehman Co., 88 N. J. L. 711, 96 Atl. 886; Sommer Faucet Co. v. Commercial

In such cases the court should submit the question of fact to the jury under proper alternative instructions as to the construction to be given to the contract in the event of each possible finding of fact by the jury.9 In case of dispute as to whether a contract imposes joint or several liability, such question must be determined by the jury.10

Casualty Ins. Co., 89 N. J. L. 693, 99 Atl. 342

Oregon Pacific Export Lumber Co. v. North Pacific Lumber Co., 46 Or. 194.. 80 Pac. 105.

South Dakota. Belknap v. Belknap, 20 S. D. 482, 107 N. W. 692.

Vermont Douglass v. Morrisville, 89 Vt. 393, 95 Atl. 810.

Wisconsin. Kaley v. Van Ostrand, 134 Wis. 443, 114 N. W. 817.

2 Schuster v. Snawder (Ky.), 101 S.

W. 1194, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 254; Williar v. Nagle, 109 Md. 75, 71 Atl. 427; Way v. Greer, 196 Mass. 237, 14 L. R. A.

(N.S.) 459, 81 N. E. 1002.

3 Williar v. Nagle, 109 Md. 75, 71 Atl. 427.

4 Schuster v. Snawder (Ky.), 101 S. W. 1194, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 254.

5 Philadelphia v. Stewart, 201 Pa. St. 526, 51 Atl. 348.

6 Arkansas. Elgin v. Barker, 106 Ark. 482, 153 S. W. 598.

Illinois. Bump v. McGrannahan (111.), 1ll N. E. 640.

Indiana. AnnadalTv. Union Cement & Lime Co., 165 Ind. 110, 74 N. E.

Iowa. Sauser v. Kearney, 147 la. 335, 126 N. W. 322.

Massachusetts. Phenix Nerve Beverage Co. v. Dennis & Lovejoy Wharf & Warehouse Co., 189 Mass. 82, 75 N. E. 258.

Michigan. McNamara v. Michigan Trust Co., 148 Mich. 346, 111 N. W. 1066.

North Carolina. Wilson v. Cotton Mills, 140 N. Car. 52, 52 S. E. 250 [sub nomine, Wilson v. Levi Cotton Mills].

West Virginia. McNeer v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 76 W. Va. 803, 86 S. E. 887.

Wisconsin. Kaley v. Van Ostrand, 134 Wis. 443, 114 N. W. 817.

7Picard v. Beers, 195 Mass. 419, 8) N. E. 246.

8 United States Health & Accident Insurance Co. v. Clark, 41 Ind. App. 345, 83 N. E. 760.

9 Alabama. Boykin v. Bank, 72 Ala. 262, 47 Am. Rep. 408.

Arkansas. Johnson v. Smothers, 79 Ark. 629, 96 S. W. 386.

Connecticut. Earley v. Hall, 89 Conn. 606, 95 Atl. 2.

Idaho. Martin v. Dowd, 8 Ida. 453, 69 Pac. 276.