Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Braddock Wire Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Braddock Wire Co.

25 A. 749, 155 Pa. 22, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1171

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 3, 1893

DocketAppeal, No. 79

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 25 A. 749 (Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Braddock Wire Co.) 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

Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Braddock Wire Co., 25 A. 749, 155 Pa. 22, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1171 (Pa. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Ctjeiam,

The principal contention in this ease was, whether, under the contract of 1889 the tonnage on which the gas bills were based was upon the steel billets that were used, that is, the raw material, or the product of it. The learned judge below instructed the jury that the tonnage was to be based upon the product. The able argument of appellant’s counsel has failed to satisfy us that this instruction was erroneous.

[25]*25There were a number of other items in plaintiff’s claim, which it is alleged were not included in the contract, and for which the defendant company should pay. Some of these claims were sustained in part by the learned judge of the court below and others were submitted to the jury under fair instructions. We do not think it is necessary to discuss them in detail. The appellant complains of that portion of the charge of the learned judge, embodied in the seventh specification, in which he refers to the course of dealing between these parties. We do not think this reference objectionable. It was used to illustrate the construction placed upon this contract by the parties themselves ; when we are asked to say what the parties meant or intended by their contract, it is entirely safe to point to their own construction of it, as evidenced by their course of dealing under it.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pee Ctjeiam,

The principal contention in this ease was, whether, under the contract of 1889 the tonnage on which the gas bills were based was upon the steel billets that were used, that is, the raw material, or the product of it. The learned judge below instructed the jury that the tonnage was to be based upon the product. The able argument of appellant’s counsel has failed to satisfy us that this instruction was erroneous.

[25]*25There were a number of other items in plaintiff’s claim, which it is alleged were not included in the contract, and for which the defendant company should pay. Some of these claims were sustained in part by the learned judge of the court below and others were submitted to the jury under fair instructions. We do not think it is necessary to discuss them in detail. The appellant complains of that portion of the charge of the learned judge, embodied in the seventh specification, in which he refers to the course of dealing between these parties. We do not think this reference objectionable. It was used to illustrate the construction placed upon this contract by the parties themselves ; when we are asked to say what the parties meant or intended by their contract, it is entirely safe to point to their own construction of it, as evidenced by their course of dealing under it.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A. 749, 155 Pa. 22, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peoples-natural-gas-co-v-braddock-wire-co-pa-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack