Jorgensen

(after stating the facts as above). Predicated upon this record, counsel for defendant urge that the contract entered into between Jorgensen Bros, and the county was single, entire, and indivisible, and that therein' the contractors engaged to go. down to bedrock with the piers at whatsoever distance it might he found; while, on the other hand, counsel for plaintiff insist that the work of extending the center pier below the profile delineation marked ‘‘bedrock” was extra service rendered the county, for which the plaintiff should recover, on quantum meruit, for labor performed and materials furnished at the instance and request of the defendant, or upon the warranty' of the defendant as to the position of the bedrock and a breach thereof in that bedrock was not found at the depth represented, and for fraud and deceit.

[1| As to which of these contentions is sound depends upon a proper construction of the contract. ()ne of the cardinal rules for the interpretation of contracts is that the court shall put itself in the place of the contracting parties as nearly as may he, and look from their viewpoint in entering into the contractual relations. From such a viewpoint the court will…