TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hattiesburg Plumbing Co. v. Carmichael & Co.

Hattiesburg Plumbing Company v. Carmichael & Company

Hattiesburg Plumbing Co. v. Carmichael & Co., 80 Miss. 66 (1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Mississippi Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1902
Judges
Whitfield
Citations
80 Miss. 66
Syllabus
Evidence. Artesian well. Meaning of term. Parol evidence. The word “artesian,” when applied to a well, indicates in its primary sense a well from which the water flows naturally, and in its secondary sense one from which the water is made to flow by artificial means, and being a term of equivocal significance when standing unexplained in a contract, and parol evidence is admissible to show what meaning it was intended to have by the parties to the contract.
Summary
Prom the circuit court of Covington county. Hon. John E. Enochs, Judge. The appellant, the Hattiesburg Plumbing Co., was plaintiff, and the appellees. A. E. Carmichael & Co., were defendants in the court below. The action was for the balance due on contract price of an artesian well put down by the plaintiff for defendants. The plaintiff’s manager testified that his company had put down the well for defendants to a depth of 554 feet, and secured a flow of water that came within sixteen feet of the top, but did not overflow under natura] pressure. It was objected by the defendants that the plaintiff had not shown performance of the contract on its own part since, only a well from which the water flows naturally, without the aid of artificial means, is an artesian well, and when the plaintiff sought to show by parol evidence the sense in which the term was employed by the parties to the contract, the court below sustained the defendants’ objection, and excluding the whole of the evidence offered by the plaintiff, directed a verdict for the defendants. Judgment having been entered accordingly, the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. While the primary meaning of the term “artesian,” as applied to a well, means a well that overflows by natural pressure, the secondary meaning includes even those where pumping is necessary. Standard Dictionary. Being a term of art, and having two meanings, it was competent to show by parol its meaning as used in the contract. Tufts v. Greenewald, 66 Miss., 360. The court did not err in excluding parol evidence to explain the meaning of the term “artesian,” as used in the contract. An “artesian well” is defined as one which flows spontaneously without the employment of artificial means. Webster’s International Die.; Worcester’s Die.; 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d ed.), 994.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Whitfield

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

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,

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1921: 12008: 119212026peak 1921 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Luria Bros. & Co. v. Klaff115 A. 849 (Md. 1921)
  2. Lange v. City of Batesville972 So. 2d 11 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)

Most recent

  1. Lange v. City of Batesville972 So. 2d 11 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)
  2. Luria Bros. & Co. v. Klaff115 A. 849 (Md. 1921)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list