The rule that questions as to the terms of the contract must be submitted to the jury, applies in written contracts where the admissible extrinsic evidence is conflicting or admits of different inferences.1 Thus where the evidence is conflicting as to the meaning of a technical term in dispute;2 or where questions as to what are "traveling expenses";3 or a "complete piped well";4 or a "thousand, brick measure";5 or a "winder," where the evidence is conflicting as to whether a winder includes a header and the adverse party concedes that it includes a weigher;6 or what is a reasonable amount of "printed matter and samples,"7 depends on conflicting extrinsic evidence and the jury must determine the intention of the parties. So if the question is which of two unidentified plans is referred to in a written contract, this should be submitted to the jury.8 If the question of what amounts to a reasonable time depends upon facts which are in dispute, or if more than one inference can be drawn from the undisputed facts, the question of what amounts to a reasonable time is a question for the jury.9

Iowa. Becker v. Churdan, 175 la. 159, 157 N. W. 221.

Kansas. Royer v. Western Silo Co.. 99 Kan. 309, 161 Pac. 654.

Kentucky. Locke v. Lyon Medicine Co. (Ky.), 27 Ky. Law Rep. 1, 84 S. W. 307.

Massachusetts. Picard v. Beers, 195 Mass. 419, 81 N. E. 246.

Michigan. Storch v. Rose, 152 Mich. 521, 116 N. W. 402; Cutler v. Spens, 191 Mich. 603, 158 N. W. 224.

Minnesota. Alworth v. Gordon, 81 Minn. 445, 84 N. W. 454; State v. Fellows, 98 Minn. 179, 107 N. W. 542, 108 N. W. 825; O'Connell v. Ward, 130 Minn. 443, 153 N. W. 865.

Nebraska. Coquillard v. Hovey, 23 Neb. 622, 8 Am. St. Rep. 134, 37 N. W. 479.

Oregon. Pacific Export Lumber Co. v. North Pacific Lumber Co., 46 Or. 194, 80 Pac. 105; Paulson v. Weeks, 80 Or. 468, 157 Pac. 590.

Vermont. Blaisdell v Davis, 72 Vt. 295, 48 Atl. 14; White v. Lumiere North American Co., 79 Vt. 206, 6 L. R. A. (N.S.) 807, 64 Atl. 1121; Douglass v. Morrisville, 89 Vt. 393, 95 Atl. 810.

Wisconsin. French v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 135 Wis. 259, 115 N. W. 869.

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

1 Alabama. Weir v. Long, 145 Ala. 328, 39 So. 974.

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

Connecticut. Levin v. New Britain Knitting Co., 78 Conn. 338, 61 Atl. 1073.

Kentucky. Locke v. Lyon Medicine Co., 84 S. W. 307, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 1.

Massachusetts. Way v. Greer, 196 Mass. 237, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 459, 81 N. E. 1002.

Minnesota. State v. Fellows, 98 Minn. 179, 107 N. W. 542, 108 N. W. 825.

Vermont. White v. Lumiere North American Co., 79 Vt. 206, 6 L. R. A. (N.S.) 807, 64 Atl. 1121.

Washington. Durand v. Heney, 33 Wash. 38, 73 Pac. 775.

Wisconsin. French v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 135 Wis. 259, 115 N. W. 869.

2 Schneider Granite Co. v. Milling Co., 78 Mo. App. 622; Rhein v. Burns, 162 Wis. 309, 156 N. W. 138.

3 Wilcox v. Baer, 85 Mo. App. 587.

4 Becker v. Churdan, 175 Ia. 159, 157 N. W. 221.

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