In a typed contract, writing subsequent to the typing controls where there is a conflict between the typed and written provisions thereof. Spencer-O'Neill House, Inc. v. Denbeck, 196 Neb. 456, 243 N.W.2d 767 (1976).

Typewriting controls printed form where two are inconsistent. Jacobsen v. Farnham, 155 Neb. 776, 53 N.W.2d 917 (1952).

Typewriting is writing within the contemplation of the statute. Mack Investment Co. v. Dominy, 140 Neb. 709, 1 N.W.2d 295 (1941); New Masonic Temple Assn. v. Globe Indemnity Co., 134 Neb. 731, 279 N.W. 475 (1938).

Sewer contractor could recover for sheeting lumber left in trench by city engineer's order, where payment was provided for in specifications, though contract provided no extras would be allowed for sheeting left in trench. Petersen v. City of Omaha, 120 Neb. 219, 231 N.W. 763 (1930).

Where first paragraph of conditions of builder's bond is in typewriting complete within itself, and inconsistent provisions are in fine print as part of blank form evidently not intended to be used, typewritten part controls. American Surety Co. v. School Dist. No. 64 of Douglas Co., 117 Neb. 6, 219 N.W. 583 (1928).

Where printed part of land contract says "good title of record," but typewritten part says "title satisfactory to attorney" of purchaser, latter prevails. Flower v. Coe, 111 Neb. 296, 196 N.W. 139 (1923).