Schneider v. Girard Trust Bank

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Schneider v. Girard Trust Bank

218 A.2d 259, 420 Pa. 636, 1966 Pa. LEXIS 820

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 22, 1966

DocketAppeal, No. 340

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 218 A.2d 259 (Schneider v. Girard Trust Bank) 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

Schneider v. Girard Trust Bank, 218 A.2d 259, 420 Pa. 636, 1966 Pa. LEXIS 820 (Pa. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

In this case the trial court submitted to the jury the question whether the several agreements between the parties hereto would permit recovery by the plaintiffs. This required that the jury resolve the ambiguity resulting from the manner in which the agreements were drawn. The jury in its verdict gave recovery to the plaintiffs.

Appellant now contends that the interpretation of the agreements should not have been submitted to the jury but should have been made by the court.

If this be error, it is harmless error since the lower court, in its opinion for the court en banc, indicated that had it chosen to resolve the ambiguity presented by the agreements its decision would have been the same as that of the jury.

We have carefully considered the other questions presented by the appellant, and find that they were properly determined below.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

In this case the trial court submitted to the jury the question whether the several agreements between the parties hereto would permit recovery by the plaintiffs. This required that the jury resolve the ambiguity resulting from the manner in which the agreements were drawn. The jury in its verdict gave recovery to the plaintiffs.

Appellant now contends that the interpretation of the agreements should not have been submitted to the jury but should have been made by the court.

If this be error, it is harmless error since the lower court, in its opinion for the court en banc, indicated that had it chosen to resolve the ambiguity presented by the agreements its decision would have been the same as that of the jury.

We have carefully considered the other questions presented by the appellant, and find that they were properly determined below.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 A.2d 259, 420 Pa. 636, 1966 Pa. LEXIS 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schneider-v-girard-trust-bank-pa-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack