The motion for judgment of nonsuit is upon the ground that the plaintiff did not notify the guaranty 'company of the failure of the contractor to complete the house by 22 January, 1912, within thirty days from that date, the defendant relying upon the stipulation in the bond, “that no liability shall attach to the surety hereunder unless, in the event of any default on the part of the principal in the' performance of any of the terms, covenants, or .conditions of the said contract, the obligee shall promptly, and in any event not later than thirty days after knowledge of such default, deliver to the surety at its office in Baltimore written notice thereof.”

No issue was tendered by the defendant, presenting the defense of the failure to give notice, and as the question is raised upon a motion to non-suit, we must consider the evidence in the most favorable aspect for the plaintiff.

The bond does not require the plaintiff to give notice to the defendant if the house is not completed by 22 January, 1912, but to give notice of default in the performance of the building contract, and if there is evi *626 dence which, when properly applied to the terms of the contract, shows that the default occurred at a later date, the motion for judgment of nonsuit ought not to have been allowed; and in our opinion there is such evidence. In the article of the building contract, requiring the house to be completed by 22 January,- 1912, it is expressly provided that if the contractor is delayed by excessively bad weather, this time is not to be counted against him, and when the article is read-as a whole, the natural and reasonable construction is that the contractor agreed to complete the house under ordinary conditions by 22 January, 1912, but if he was delayed by very had weather, he should have additional time for the performance of the contract.

This is in the agreement of the parties, which defendant company guaranteed should be performed, and it has the effect of extending the time of performance, if delays are caused by bad weather, and during this extension of time there would be no default on account of failure to complete the house, and the plaintiff offered the evidence of several witnesses tending to prove delays on account of the weather, one witness testifying that at one time no work could be done for three weeks.

The plaintiff was entitled to have this evidence considered by the jury, and, if believed, it tended to establish her contention that there was no default by reason of the failure to complete the house by 22 January, and the motion for judgment of nonsuit was, therefore, properly denied.

There is no error in the instruction given to the jury, as the uncontra-dict'ed evidence is that the plaintiff expended much more than $1,800, according to the plans and specifications of the Contract, in the completion of the house.

No error.