This is an action on a written contract for the payment of money. The plaintiff had judgment in the lower court for $475; but, contending that his recovery should have been for $625, the full amount claimed in the prayer of his complaint, he has appealed on the judgment-roll.

If the defendant is right in her interpretation of the written contract the judgment should be affirmed.

The contract sued on is set forth in the findings, and is as follows:

The defendant claims that the finding last quoted shows that the plaintiff has breached his contract and may not recover. We think this claim is sound. Under his contract the plaintiff was “to depart for Switzerland.” The word “depart” means to go away, and is synonymous with abandon, die, and escape (Standard Dictionary). Such was its old legal meaning (Burrill’s Law Dictionary). It does not imply temporary visits but has reference to permanent visits. (Blodgett v. Utley, 4 Neb. 29 ; Venuci v. Cademartori, 59 Mo. 352 ; Webster v. Citizens’ Bank, 2 Neb. Unof. 353, [ 96 N. W. 118 , 119]; Lee v. McKoy, 118 N. C. 518 , [ 24 S. E. 210 ]; In re Jack Sen, 36 Fed. 441 .) We think this meaning of the word “depart” is re-enforced by the clause that the plaintiff will never ‘ approach her against her will. ’ ’ One of the ordinary meanings of the word “approach” is “to come nearer in space” (Standard Dictionary). Again his departure was a sine qua non so far as payments by the defendant were concerned. The plaintiff was to be paid his expenses of going to Switzerland, not the expenses of a round trip; his monthly allowance was not to be paid until “his arrival in Switzer land”; the subsequent payments defendant was “to send him” after plaintiff reached Switzerland.

The judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Lennon, P. J., and Beasly, J., pro tern., concurred. ■

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on November 14, 1918.