Novelty Hat Manufacturing Co. v. Wiseberg
Supreme Court of Georgia
Complaint. Before Judge Beid. City court of Atlanta. December 14, 1905. In October, 1903, the Novelty Hat Manufacturing Company and Wiseberg entered into a contract which provided that “said Wiseberg agrees to work in the employ of the Novelty Hat Mfg.
Read the full summary
Complaint. Before Judge Beid. City court of Atlanta. December 14, 1905. In October, 1903, the Novelty Hat Manufacturing Company and Wiseberg entered into a contract which provided that “said Wiseberg agrees to work in the employ of the Novelty Hat Mfg. Co., both in the house and on the road, as traveling salesman; for which he is to receive the sum of $100.00 per month, provided his (counting only goods shipped as sales) sales average the amount of $25,000 per annum; and it is also agreed that Wiseberg is to receive a commission of 5% on all sales over the above amount, although he is to get…
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.
(After stating the facts.) The court erred in holding that the contract sued on was not ambiguous. Many definitions of the term “ambiguous” can be found in the reports, in law dictionaries, and in the various standard lexicons, and while these definitions vary among themselves, some being broader, and some more restricted in scope, tested by any of them the instrument immediately under consideration is, it seems to us, open to the criticism made upon it by counsel for plaintiff in error, that it is ambiguous. “ ‘Ambiguity’ is defined as duplicity, indistinctness, an uncertainty of meaning or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Nindle v. State BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1882
3Cited by24 opinions
- McCann v. Glynn Lumber CompanySupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
- Dorsey v. ClementsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1947
- Simpson & Harper v. Sanders & JenkinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
- Early v. KentSupreme Court of Georgia · 1959
- McKee v. CartledgeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.