Elliott v. Wanamaker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 114, July T., 1892, by plaintiff, James Elliott, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1891, No. 171, on verdict for plaintiff for part of his claim. Assumpsit to recover salary claimed to be due.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 114, July T., 1892, by plaintiff, James Elliott, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1891, No. 171, on verdict for plaintiff for part of his claim. Assumpsit to recover salary claimed to be due. The facts appear by the charge of the court, in part as follows, by Arnold, J.: “ Mr. Elliott says that he met Mr. Wanamaker on Friday, the twenty-second-day of April, 1887, and concluded an agreement with him on that day; that the agreement was this: ‘ My brother was to take the flannel department and I was to take the dress-goods department of the wholesale department. I…
1Opinion of the Court
Per, Curiam,
The construction of an oral contract is for the jury where there is any doubt about its terms; and where terms are not *74used in their ordinary sense, and it is shown that by custom or usage they are to be understood in a different sense, it is for the jury to determine what the contract is ; but when there is no dispute as to its terms, and no ambiguity which needs explanation, it is for the court to determine the meaning of the contract. The province of the jury is to settle disputed questions of fact. If no such disputed facts exist there is nothing for them to do, and it is for…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Campagna v. ZiskindSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Williams v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- McCormack v. JermynSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Saxman v. McCormickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- MacHen v. Budd Wheel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.