The use of the term "penalty," or "liquidated damages," is not conclusive.1 On the one hand, a provision for "liquidated damages" may appear from the context of the contract to be really a provision for a penalty, and will accordingly be so treated.2 " There is no charm in the words 'liquidated damages."3 A provision that "said damages are stipulated at" a, certain amount, or for paying "stipulated damages," may be held from the context to be a covenant for a penalty.4 A like result has been reached where a liability imposed by statute, penal in its nature, is spoken of by statute as "liquidated damages." It is, notwithstanding, treated as a penalty.5 On the other hand, a contract for a "penalty" may appear from the context to be a contract for liquidated damages, and will be so treated.6 So a provision for a "penalty" - "named as stipulated damages"7 or for paying "the penal sum of six hundred dollars" for breach of a logging contract,8 or for a "fine,"9 or "as a forfeiture,"10 or as a "forfeiture" of a certain amount "as liquidated damages"11 or as a "guarantee or forfeiture,"12 or "as forfeit,"13 have each been held to be provisions for liquidated damages where such appeared to be their real nature.

29Rabinowitz v. Apter, 90 Conn. 1, 96 Atl. 157.

1 United States. Northwestern Terra Cotta Co. v. Caldwell, 234 Fed. 491, 148 C. C. A. 257.

Alabama. McCurry v. Gibson, 108 Ala. 451, 54 Am. St. Rep. 177, 18 So. 806.

Arkansas. Boston Store v. Schleu-ter, 88 Ark. 213, 114 S. W. 242.

Illinois. Hennessy v. Metzger, 152 111. 505. 43 Am. St. Rep. 267, 38 N. E. 1058.

Iowa. Elzey v. Winterset, 172 Ia. 643, 154 N. W. 901.

Maryland. Willson v. Baltimore, 83 Md. 203, 55 Am. St. Rep. 339, 34 Atl. 774.

Michigan. Decker v. Pierce, 191 Mich. 64, 157 N. W. 384.

Missouri. May v. Crawford, 142 Mo. 390, 44 S. W. 260.

North Carolina. Bradshaw v. Milli-Irin, 173 N. Car. 432, 92 S. E. 161.

Ohio. Lange v. Werke, 2 O. S. 519.

2 England. Kemble v. Farren, 6 Bing. 141.

United States. Tilley v. Loan Association, 52 Fed. 618; Chicago House-Wrecking Co. v. United States, 106 Fed. 385, 53 L. R. A. 122, 45 C. C. A. 343; Northwestern Terra Cotta Co. v. Caldwell, 234 Fed. 491, 148 C. C. A. 257.

Iowa. Elzey v. Winterset, 172 Ia. 643, 154 N. W. 901.

North Carolina. Disosway v. Edwards, 134 N. Car. 254, 46 S. E. 501.

Wisconsin. Fitzpatrick v. Cotting-ham, 14 Wis. 219.

3 Elzey v. Winterset, 172 Ia. 643, 154 N. W. 901.

4 Decker v. Pierce, 191 Mich. 64, 157 N. W. 384.

5 Anderson v. Byrnes, 122 Cal. 272, 54 Pac. 821.

6 United States v. Bethlehem Steel Company, 205 U. S. 105, 51 L. ed. 731; Robinson v. Aid Society, 68 N. J. L. 723, 54 Atl. 416; Illinois Central Ry. v. Cabinet Co., 104 Tenn. 568, 78 Am. St. Rep. 933, 50 L. R. A. 729, 58 S. W. 303.

Prima facie the term used by the parties is the correct one.14 If the entire contract leaves it fairly doubtful whether the amount named is a penalty or liquidated damages, the fact that the parties have called it liquidated damages will be conclusive.15 The presumption of the accuracy of the term used by the parties is possibly somewhat stronger when the term employed is "penalty" than when it is "liquidated damages."16 Under a contract which provided for an advance payment of three thousand dollars, and for the "forfeiture" of such advance payment in case of breach of such contract by the buyer, such provision is for a penalty and not for liquidated damages.17 "The parties themselves denominate it a penalty, and it would require very strong evidence to authorize the court to say that their own words do not express their own intention." 18

7Tode v. Gross, 127 N. Y. 480, 24 Am. St. Rep. 475, 13 L. R. A. 652, 28 N. . 460.

8 Montague v. Robinson, 122 Ark. 163, 182 S. W. 558 (obiter).

9 Manistee Iron Works Co. v. Lumber Co., 92 Wis. 21, 65 N. W. 863.

10McCurry v. Gibson, 108 Ala. 451, 64 Am. St. Rep. 177, 18 So. 806.

11 Lange v. Werke, 2 O. S. 619.

12Sanders v. Carter, 91 Ga. 450, 17 S. E. 345.

13 Hardie, etc., Co. v. Oil Mill, 84 Miss. 269, 36 So. 262.

See also, Boston Store v. Sclileuter, 88 Ark. 213, 114 S. W. 242.

14 "Liquidated damages," prima facie correct. Stegman v. O'Connor, 80 L. T. (N.S.) 234; United States v. Rubin, 233 Fed. 125; Kelly v. Fejervary, 111 Ia. 693, 83 N. W. 791; Selby v. Mat-son, 137 Ia. 97, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1210, 114 N. W. 609; Garst v. Harris, 177 Mass. 72. 58 N. E. 174.

"Penalty," prima facie correct. Smith v. Brown, 164 Mass. 584, 42 N. E. 101; Wilkinson v. Colley, 164 Pa. St. 36, 26 L. R. A. 114, 30 Atl. 286.

Held penalties. "In the penal sum of estimated amount of freight." Watts v. Camors, 115 U. S. 353, 29 L. ed. 406.

"Forfeiture." Van Buren v. Digges, 52 U. S. (11 How.) 461, 13 L. ed. 771.

15United States v. Rubin, 233 Fed. 125.

16 Arkansas. Montague v. Robinson, 122 Ark. 163, 182 S. W. 558.

Iowa. Foley v. McKeegan, 4 Ia. 1, 66 Am. Dec. 107.

Kansas. Evans v. Moseley, 84 Kan. 322, 50 L. R. A. (N.S.) 889, 114 Pac. 374.

Massachusetts. Smith v. Brown, 164 Mass. 584, 42 N. E. 101.

Vermont. Smith v. Wainwright, 24 Vt. 97.

17 Evans v. Moseley, 84 Kan. 322, 50 L. R. A. (N.S.) 889, 114 Pac. 374.

Since written words prevail over printed words,19 a contract which provides in printing for a penalty, but in which the words "as liquidated damages" are interlined in handwriting, will be treated as if the parties had intended to insert only the provision for liquidated damages.20 The fact that provision is made for a bond or a certified check, "as surety for the making and execution of a contract," does not show that the parties have agreed upon such deposit, in case a deposit is made in place of a bond, as liquidated damages.21

It has been said that there is a strong tendency to treat covenants for payment on breach as covenants for liquidated damages; and this has been said even where the contract referred to the amount as a "penal sum"22