Hattiesburg Plumbing Co. v. Carmichael & Co.

80 Miss. 66
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided March 15, 1902·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Whitfield, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The primary definition in all the dictionaries of the word “artesian” indicates a well from which the water flows naturally without artificial pressure; but the secondary definition of this word in the Century and Standard dictionaries, and others, seems to indicate that it may be applied also to wells from which the- water is made to flow by artificial means. The word “artesian,” therefore, becomes a term of equivocal significance, standing unexplained in a contract. It was hence competent to introduce parol testimony to show what meaning it had in this particular contract. The court, consequently, erred in excluding this testimony; it should receive all parol testimony showing what meaning this word “artesian” had as used by the parties to this contract.

Reversed and remanded,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hattiesburg Plumbing Co. v. Carmichael & Co., 80 Miss. 66 (Mich. 1902).

80 Miss. 66 (Hattiesburg Plumbing Co. v. Carmichael & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lange v. City of Batesville
972 So. 2d 11 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2008)
Luria Bros. & Co. v. Klaff
115 A. 849 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1921)