Elliott v. Wanamaker

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Elliott v. Wanamaker

25 A. 826, 155 Pa. 67, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1189

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 16, 1893

DocketAppeal, No. 114

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 25 A. 826 (Elliott v. Wanamaker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elliott v. Wanamaker, 25 A. 826, 155 Pa. 67, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1189 (Pa. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Per, Curiam,

The construction of an oral contract is for the jury where there is any doubt about its terms; and where terms are not [74]*74used in their ordinary sense, and it is shown that by custom or usage they are to be understood in a different sense, it is for the jury to determine what the contract is ; but when there is no dispute as to its terms, and no ambiguity which needs explanation, it is for the court to determine the meaning of the contract. The province of the jury is to settle disputed questions of fact. If no such disputed facts exist there is nothing for them to do, and it is for the court to determine the legal effect of the contract. In this case there was no dispute as to the terms of the contract. The learned judge below construed it as it was stated by the plaintiff himself. We are of opinion that by the plaintiff’s own statement of it the court below was justified in instructing the jury that the defendants had a right to discharge him from their employment, and to direct the jury to find in their favor, except for the amount of plaintiff’s salary, with interest thereon, unpaid to him at the time of his discharge on June 12, 1889.

Note.—A suit on this contract, brought in C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., was nonsuited, aud a motion to take off that nonsuit was refused in an opinion by Fell, J., 48 Leg. Int. 66 ; s. c. 9 Pa. C. C. R. 497.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per, Curiam,

The construction of an oral contract is for the jury where there is any doubt about its terms; and where terms are not [74]*74used in their ordinary sense, and it is shown that by custom or usage they are to be understood in a different sense, it is for the jury to determine what the contract is ; but when there is no dispute as to its terms, and no ambiguity which needs explanation, it is for the court to determine the meaning of the contract. The province of the jury is to settle disputed questions of fact. If no such disputed facts exist there is nothing for them to do, and it is for the court to determine the legal effect of the contract. In this case there was no dispute as to the terms of the contract. The learned judge below construed it as it was stated by the plaintiff himself. We are of opinion that by the plaintiff’s own statement of it the court below was justified in instructing the jury that the defendants had a right to discharge him from their employment, and to direct the jury to find in their favor, except for the amount of plaintiff’s salary, with interest thereon, unpaid to him at the time of his discharge on June 12, 1889.

Note.—A suit on this contract, brought in C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., was nonsuited, aud a motion to take off that nonsuit was refused in an opinion by Fell, J., 48 Leg. Int. 66 ; s. c. 9 Pa. C. C. R. 497.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A. 826, 155 Pa. 67, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-wanamaker-pa-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack