ARK.] A9EY V. PEDERSON. 497 • AGEY V. PEDERSON. 4-3937 Ophdon delivered October 28, 1935. 1. CONTRACTS—MEANING FOR JURY WHEN.—Where a written contract is ambiguous in whole or in part, its meaning should be , left to the jury. 2. CO NTRACTS— AMBIGUITY.—Where a written contract for the rental of an oil well drill was ambiguous as to the amount which was to be paid for the use of the drill, the question as to the meaning of the language employed was properly left to the jury. Appeal from Miller Circuit Court ; Dexter Bush, Judge ; affirmed. A. L. Burford and B. E. Carter, for appellant. Shaver, Shaver <6 Williams, for appellees. HUMPHREYS, J. This suit was brought by appellant against appellees in the circuit court of Miller County to recover $1,197.63 for the use of , an oil well drill for
498 AGEY 2). PEDERSON. [191 23 days 'at $50 per day, $26.13 for swab rubber s' , and $21.50 for a joint of drill pipe. Appellee§ filed an answer admitting that they owed appellant for the last two item 's and $275 for . the uSe of the drill for . 5 1/ 2 days at $50 per day, but denied that they oWed . the balance claimed for the nse 'of the drill and tendered. the amouht admitted to . be due . appellant, or $322,63, in full of their indebtednes§ to appellant. The ishe joined was whether ' appellees, under the lease or the rental contract for the use of the drill, owed appellant for 23 days or for 5 1/ 2 daYs. This issue . Was submitted to the jury under the instruction of the court that the written lease Or rental contract was ambiguous, and that,.should they find from the preponderance of the evidence , that appellant was to receive $50 per day for every day aPpellees kept the drill, then they should render a verdict fOr . $1,197.63 in favor of appellant, but, should they , find . appellees• were . to pay $50 per . day' for the days- they actually' nsed the drill, then they should render a verdict in favor of apPellants for $322:63. The jury found that under the lease appellees were to pay $50 per day for the , days they actually used the drill, which waS 5 1/2 days, and rendered a verdict in favor of appellant for 69 22:63, in-lu rl ing the items nf $960 for swab rubbers . and $21.50 for . the joint of drill pipe, and, from the judgment rendered in accordance with the verdict, an appeal has •been duly prosecuted to this-court. The-recOrd reflects that appellant had drilled • a well for . appellees and found no oil, , at which time a.dispute arose: between them as to the amount appellees owed appellant. On the 5th day of June an agreement was reached between them as to the amOunt then due and the price to be paid for, the, use of the drill to complete the well and make' a test of the lower Trinity formations. The amount agreed upon was paid- by appellees to appellant and the following instrument of writing wa.s executed: "6-5-33. ."Received of Fred Pederson and-or Duluth . Arkan-sas Oil Company tWo thousand, .six huildred tWelVe and
.4111i.] AGEY V. .PEDERSON, 499 84-100th dollars ($2,612.84-100) in full payment for all work and contradt to date_ on Garland City well located on Price farm. Also agree to lease above rig for $50 per day to .. A13dve . parties to complete said : well and make test of lower Trinity formations. When this Price well is completed, this and all , .agreements , to._date are terminated. "Agey Drilling Company, •."By W. M. Agcy." Testimony was introdueed by appellant tending to show that the intention of the parties was that appellees should pay . appellant $50 per day for every day they kept the drill. It was undisputed -that • they kept the drill 23 days. . . Testimeny was introduced by . , appellees tending to • show that the intention of the parties was that appellee should pay appellant $50 per day for the days they actually used the drill in completing the well. At the' conclusion ' of . the testimony appellant re- quested the ebtirt to instruct the jury that the meaning of the contract between the parties is that the defendants should pay the plaintiff $50-per day for each day that the defendants kept the rig in their possession.- This instruction was peretnptory in effect and was refused by the court, and it is ‘ contended that . the court comniitted reversible error in refusing to give the in-• struction. The ,rule of law is that where a written contract is ambiguous in . whole or in part, the meaning • thereOf should be left to the jury. Jones v. Lewis; 89 -Ark. 368, -117 S. W. 561 ; Yale Automobile CoMpany v. Walker, 145 Ark. 344, 224 S. W. 632; Wisconsin & Arkansas .Lumber Company v. Fitzhugh, 151 Ark. 81, 235 S. W. 1001. The lower court's construction. of the instant contract was that it is ambiguous in that it failed to 'state whether appellees should , pay ; , $50 , per duy . for each day they kept the drilling rig or. $50 per day , for the days they actually used the outfit ,rn completing : the:well,. This ambiguity existed in the . writing, , and . tlie court correctly submitted to the jury the question , of the 'meaning Of the language employed in this , ParticUlar. No error appearing, thejudgment is affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.