Matchette v. Colburn
This text of 31 A. 74 (Matchette v. Colburn) 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.
Opinion
According to the terms of the agreement of April 27, 1893, J. H. Dilworth & Co. were bound to pay plaintiff, “ at the close of each day, twelve and one half per cent of said gross [267]*267receipts for such day.” It appears to have been so understood by the parties thereto, and, for more than two months, settlements were accordingly made upon that basis. The construction now contended for by defendant was an after-thought, unwarranted by the language employed in the agreement. There was therefore no error in sustaining the construction contended for by plaintiff, and entering judgment in his favor for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
31 A. 74, 166 Pa. 265, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matchette-v-colburn-pa-1895.