Leebrick v. Lyter
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. Joseph Lyter, for the use of Shammo & Finney, against John P. Leebrick. This was an action of debt, to recover the price of a quantity of stone furnished under the following contract: “Memorandum of agreement as follows: — Joseph Lyter, of Halifax, hereby contracts and agrees to deliver to John P. Lee-brick, on the bank of the river opposite- section 12 of the Wisconisco canal, wherever directed by said Leebrick, a quantity of…
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. Joseph Lyter, for the use of Shammo & Finney, against John P. Leebrick. This was an action of debt, to recover the price of a quantity of stone furnished under the following contract: “Memorandum of agreement as follows: — Joseph Lyter, of Halifax, hereby contracts and agrees to deliver to John P. Lee-brick, on the bank of the river opposite- section 12 of the Wisconisco canal, wherever directed by said Leebrick, a quantity of stone amounting to at least 1000 perches, to be measured in the toall by the engineer of said canal. The stone to be taken…
1Per curiam
There is error only in the charge. By the terms of the contract, the quantity of stone delivered was to be ascertained by “ the engineer of said canal.” But there were three; a principal engineer, a principal assistant, and a sub-assistant. So that we have the common case of a latent ambiguity, and it was *367for the jury to determine from the evidence which of them was meant. Perhaps, as the business of official measurement for payment of the estimates was within the province of the sub-assistant, the parties had him in view, being content to commit the measurement, in their private matter, to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wilson v. GettySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
- Boswell's Appeal, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1883