Davis

This is an action whereby plaintiffs and appellants sought to have declared the respective rights and obligations of the parties to a written contract. By additional counts contained in the complaint, and based upon their construction of the contract, they further sought to recover damages for past breaches by defendant and respondent. Throughout the trial plaintiffs and appellants claimed that the contract was uncertain and ambiguous. They sought to introduce, and were by the trial court permitted to introduce, evidence of the facts and circumstances attending the execution of the contract as an aid to its interpretation. We think the contract was sufficiently ambiguous to justify the introduction of such evidence. The result is that this court upon appeal is bound by the interpretation of the trial court where it is reasonable and is supported by the evidence introduced. (Woodbine v. Van Horn, 29 Cal.2d 95, 104 [ 173 P.2d 17 ]; Orillo v. Curtola, 91 Cal.App.2d 263, 272 [ 204 P.2d 941 ] ; Nuland v. Pruyn, 99 Cal.App.2d 603, 609 [ 222 P.2d 261 ].)

The contract was executed on May 6, 1938, between Soule Steel Company, J. E. Davis and Alice Maud Davis, his wife, as first parties,…