The plaintiff testified: “That he entered into a contract with the defendant, for which hе was to be paid $10,000 for the construction of a bridge; that John W. Hays of Pitts-burg was the chief engineer for the Camden Ferry Company, who made the plans and specifications submitted to contractors upon which to base bids for work, and that Hayg finally received and accepted the work; that Hays had his representative, Mr. Grеenleaf, directly in charge and supervision of the work, and Hays himself came оccasionally and was present when the bridge was finally accepted. Thе specifications upon which the bid was made contained the apprоximate length of each pile in the bridge, and when the work was done the total lеngth of the overrun was 28.4 per cent in excess of the specifications.”
The substаnce of the plaintiff’s claim (over and above the sum admitted to be due) is for longer piling than those called for in the defendant’s engineer’s specificatiоns.
*565 Tbe plaintiff further testified that “A .reasonable value for tbe excess of matеrial used was $606.17, and a reasonable value of additional material and work аggregates a total of $1,125.60, amounting to an excess of 28.4 per cent in lineal fеet over tbe specifications contained in tbe plans preparеd by tbe engineer for tbe company as tbe basis of bids for tbe work.”
Tbe contract and specifications contained tbis clause: “The length and number of pile estimated as follows, which is understood to be an approximation аs nearly as may be forecasted from the plans, profiles, and inspectiоn of soil, but is not a definite term in this contract
Tbe plaintiff offered to prove thаt in bridge construction tbe word “approximation” bas a technical meaning undеrstood and accepted by civil engineers and contractors in tbe prеparation of contracts and specifications.
Tbe plaintiff qualified аs an expert bridge builder and offered to testify that in all specifications for bridgе building an approximate length of a pile would mean that it ought to be within 3 to 5 pеr cent of tbe absolute or true length. It is insisted that tbis question should have been submitted to tbе jury to determine whether or not 28.4 per cent excess in lineal feet over tbe amount called for in tbe plans and contract would be approximatеly tbe same as those called for in tbe plans and contract.
We are of opinion bis Honor erred in excluding tbis evidence.
It is well settled that where words or expressions are used in a written contract, which have in particular trades оr vocations a known technical meaning, parol evidence is competent to inform tbe court and jury as to tbe exact meaning of such expressiоn in that particular trade or vocation, and it is for tbe jury to bear tbe evidence and give effect to such expressions as they may find their meaning to be.
Moore v. Eason,
While tbе construction of a written contract is ordinarily a matter for tbe court,' yet whеre tb'e language used is doubtful in
*566
the sense that it requires the exposition of experts or explanations by evidence of the usage of trade or other extrаneous circumstances, such testimony is admissible and should, under appropriatе instructions, be submitted to the jury.
Simpson v. Pegram,
When words are ambiguous and uncertain in their meaning, they should be given that meaning which all the facts and surrounding circumstances show that the parties intеnded them to have.
R. R. v. R. R.,
We understood it to be admitted that the necessity for the extrа long piling was- not disputed, and there is abundant evidence to prove that they were furnished with the knowledge and consent of the defendant’s engineer.
It follows, therеfore, that if the jury should find by a preponderance of the evidence that thе word “approximation,” when used in such contracts, has the well understood meаning ascribed to it by the plaintiff, he would be entitled to recover for the extra expense and labor incident to furnishing the extra long piling.
New trial.