2.
Usage of trade does not require to be immemorial to establish it; if it
be known, certain, uniform, reasonable, and not contrary to law, it is
sufficient. But evidence of a few instances that such a thing has been
done does not establish a usage. 3 Watts, 178; 3 Wash. C. C. R. 150; 1
Gallis. 443; 5 Binn. 287; 9 Pick. 426; 4 B. & Ald. 210; 7 Pet. 1; 2
Wash. C. C. R. 7.
3.
The usages of trade afford ground upon which a proper construction may
be given to contracts. By their aid the indeterminate intention of
parties and the nature and extent of their contracts arising from mere
implications or presumptions, and act of an equivocal character may be
ascertained; and the meaning of words and doubtful expressions may
become known. 2 Mete. 65; 2 Sumn. 569; 2 G. & J. 136; 13 Pick. 182;
Story on Ag. §77; 2 Kent, Com. 662, 3d ed.; 5 Wheat. 326; 2 Car. &
P. 525; 3 B. & Ald. 728; Park. on Ins. 30; 1 Marsh. Ins. 186, n. 20;
1 Caines, 45 Gilp. 356, 486; 1 Edw. Ch. R. 146; 1 N. & M. 519; 15
Mass. 433; 1 Rill, R. 270; Wright, R. 573; Pet. C. C. R. 230; 5 Hamm.
436 6 Pet. 715; 2 Pet. 148; 6 Porter, 123 1 Hall, 612; 9 Mass. 155; 9
Wheat. 582 11 Wheat. 430; 1 Pet. 25, 89.
4.
Courts will not readily adopt these usages, because they are not
unfrequently founded in mistake. 2 Sumn. 377. See 3 Chitt. Pr. 55;
Story, Confl. of Laws, §270; 1 Dall. 178; Vaugh. 169, 383; Bouv. Inst.
Index, h. t.
No comments:
Write comments