delivered the opinion of the court.
Plaintiff, Paul H. Goodman, a real estate broker doing business as the Good Realty Company, brought action to recover a commission claimed due under a listing authorizing him to sell certain real estate and equipment for defendant, Boyd Kelly. From an adverse judgment, entered pursuant to a jury verdict, plaintiff appeals.
There is little dispute as to the facts pertinent to the appeal. At all times herein plaintiff was a licensed real estate broker in Wyoming with some twenty-two years’ experience in the business. Defendant was the owner of a ranch near Daniel, Wyoming, and under date of August 3, 1956, signed a listing agreement whereby defendant granted to plaintiff the right to sell defendant’s ranch and equipment at a price of $400,000, for which plaintiff was to receive a commission of two per cent. The agreement was on a printed form furnished and used by plaintiff for such purposes, and with the exception of defendant’s signature, all handwriting on the form was that of the plaintiff. Among other things, the agreement reserved to defendant the right to make sale of his property through his own efforts without liability to plaintiff for the commission, with the proviso, however, that plaintiff would be entitled to his commission “in case said property is sold within six months after the termination of *246 this listing to James Bros, of Jackson or any other person introduced to or shown said property through your [plaintiff’s] advertising or efforts.” Inasmuch as sale of the property was made by defendant to “James Bros, of Jackson” on May 6, 1957, without the assistance or participation of plaintiff, the termination date of the listing is of critical importance. The agreement provided:
“ * * * This listing shall continue until Nov. 1, 1956, and thereafter until terminated in writing - days in advance.”
By way of explanation for failure to fix a specific number of days for advance notice as seems to be contemplated by the form, the plaintiff, called by defendant under Rule 43(b), W.R.C.P., and over objection of his counsel, testified as follows:
“Q. Now, handing you what has been marked for identification as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, did you and Mr. Kelly have any discussion relative to the last sentence contained therein? A. Yes, we did. I pointed out that it reads there, until November 1st, and thereafter until given notice in writing. So since there is no need in putting a number of days, any time that you want me to quit, my services are not satisfactory, why you just give me a letter in writing that you don’t want me to work on it any more, so we did not put in any number of days, which is my custom, as I do nearly all of my listings.
“Q. You say you do that in all of your listings? A. Nearly all of them unless they insist upon it — unless they insist to the contrary.”
Although defendant denied such conversation occurred, we think a reasonable view of his testimony was to the effect that the life of the listing was discussed but that the termination date was to be fixed as of November 1, 1956. In any event, defendant so treated the listing and failed to notify plaintiff in writing at any time that the listing was revoked as of that date. We have already mentioned that defendant, acting for himself, made sale of the property to James Bros, six days after the six-month period from November 1, 1956, had elapsed. Plaintiff testified that he did not learn of the sale until after it was consummated and thereupon made demand on defendant for his commission to no avail. This litigation followed.
In presenting the matter to us, the parties center their attention upon the provisions of the agreement, and in that respect we refer briefly to the pleadings. For his right of recovery, plaintiff alleges that the listing was to remain in full force and effect until! November 1, 1956, and thereafter until terminated in writing; that under its terms-plaintiff was to receive his commission if sale was made by defendant to James Bros, within six months of the termination date of the listing; that defendant failed to-terminate the listing in keeping with its-terms, and during the effective period of the listing sold the property to James Bros, for the sum of $388,000; and that as a result of such sale defendant owes plaintiff the commission fixed by the listing. Plaintiff also alleged bad faith on the part of defendant in making the sale, but abandoned such issue at the trial and relied solely upon the terms of the listing.
In answering, defendant admits the signing of the listing and the sale to James Bros, on May 6, 1957; denies that such sale was made at a time when said listing was in effect; alleges that defendant sold the property “after said listing had expired by its own terms”; and then, concerning the failure of the agreement to fix a specific time for advance notice of termination, alleges “that it was the intent of the parties that said listing was to expire by its own terms on November 1, 1956, and was not to continue thereafter until terminated in writing and for that reason no time for said written notice was inserted in said listing in the blank provided therefor.” Defendant also alleges waiver and abandonment by plaintiff of the conditions imposed by the listing, but the only evidence offered in support is *247 that plaintiff, after November -1, 1956, had not taken the James'Bros, to defendant’s ranch. Aside from lack of evidence to support the affirmative defense, defendant must he held to have waived the matter. Defendant took no exception to Instruction No. 2 whereby the only issue tendered to the jury was the question of whether it was the intention of the parties that the contract ■“was to expire November 1, 1956,” or whether it was the intention of the parties ■“as expressed in said listing that it would not expire until written notice was given by defendant.”
At the close of the evidence, the sale to James Bros, on May 6, 1957, having been established, plaintiff moved for a directed verdict in keeping with his theory of the •case that the listing was not ambiguous with respect to time and provision for termination, and for such reason “the construction ■of the contract is a legal question for the •determination by the Court and is not a •question of fact to be determined by the Jury.” The motion was overruled, and ■over the further objection of plaintiff to Instruction No. 2, the question of intent was ■submitted as above noted.
In order clearly to delineate the matters submitted for our consideration, some further comment on the state of the record is indicated. Plaintiff claimed error in that the verdict was contrary to the •evidence, and the judgment contrary to law; also, that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict. However, •on argument, counsel for plaintiff conceded that the judgment must stand if the trial •court correctly ruled on the motion. We assume that such concession was made in recognition of the fact that the testimony ■of the parties concerning the conversation as to the period of time that the listing was -to remain in force, if competent, was in conflict, and under such circumstances the finding of the jury will not here be disturbed. Thus, plaintiff submits the case on the merits of his motion. As we view it, •defendant’s resistance to the appeal is likewise limited to'consideration of the propriety of the ruling on the matter. True, defendant alleged and argues that the failure to fix a time for service of the notice of .termination was in keeping with the intent of the parties that no such written notice was required. Nevertheless, defendant did not seek reformation of the listing on the ground of mutual mistake, and without intimating in the least that such remedy may have been open to him, the fact is that he did not pursue it and under our rules must be held to have waived such defense. Consequently, the sole question for our determination is whether or not the provision of the listing on its face, relating to the material and critical issue of the period of time that the listing was to remain in force, clearly expressed the intention of the parties.
If the meaning of the provision was apparent and unambiguous, the interpretation of the provision was for the court as a matter of law. If otherwise, resort may be had to competent evidence of extraneous circumstances that tend to explain the ambiguity and further illustrate the intention of the parties at the time the provision was adopted. In such an instance, interpretation becomes a mixed question of law and fact. Johnson v. School Dist. No. 14, Platte County,
In' discussing the contentions of the parties on the question before us, no doubt it can be said that if a specific time had been fixed for advance notice of termination, the case would not be here. We held in Leet v. Joder,
It must be conceded that each party’s contentions are not without some appeal. Defendant suggests that we nudge his a bit in the light of the recognized rule that in case of doubt as to the meaning of the terms of an' instrument, the doubt will be resolved against the scrivener of the instrument, particularly where, as here, it is spread on a printed form adopted by the scrivener. We would agree with defendant that there is good reason to invoke the rule to the extent possible. Seldom have we seen such negligence and carelessness in the drafting of an instrument of agency by a real estate broker of long experience for the sale of an owner’s property of the magnitude here involved. Nevertheless, we may not, under the guise of interpretation, rewrite the contract for the parties and cannot go beyond our' function of interpreting the language used according to established legal principles. McGinnis v. General Petroleum Corporation, Wyo.,
We come now to the effect, if any, of the so-called blank space in the termination provision; Technically speaking, it is not entirely correct to say that the blank space remained unfilled. Two lines were drawn through it by plaintiff. However, that seems of little importance. In either circumstance, there can be little doubt that the phrase “ - - days in advance” is meaningless. That is not to say, however, that it rendered the entire termination provision meaningless, indefinite, or incomplete. In 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 65, p. 742, it is said:
“A writing is incomplete as an agreement if blanks as to material matters are left in it, unless the omission may be supplied from other parts of such writing or the blanks are subsequently and lawfully filled. Blanks may be rejected as surplusage if the parties so intend.”
The language contained in the form indicating a fixed time of giving advance notice of termination became a requirement only if agreed upon by the parties. Lack of it would not obviate the requirement of' notice in writing. The phrase was not essential to complete the' method adopted for termination. Such is the view taken of a substantially similar listing in the case of Mansfield v. Goodhue,
The judgment must be and is hereby reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further action consistent with the views herein expressed.