Cornish v. Hooker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL BY DEFENDANTS FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONROE COUNTY. July Term 1880, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 30 May Term 1889, C. P. On May 9, 1889, James W. Cornish brought assumpsit against Edward E. Hooker, Sr., and Edward E. Hooker, Jr., partners doing business as E. E. Hooker & Son. Issue.
Read the full summary
APPEAL BY DEFENDANTS FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONROE COUNTY. July Term 1880, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 30 May Term 1889, C. P. On May 9, 1889, James W. Cornish brought assumpsit against Edward E. Hooker, Sr., and Edward E. Hooker, Jr., partners doing business as E. E. Hooker & Son. Issue. At the trial, on June 3, 1890, the plaintiff proved and put in evidence a contract under seal, dated September 27, 1887, between himself and the defendants, whereby the defendants engaged the services'of the plaintiff for the period of three years from April 1, 1888, and covenanted to pay therefor…
1Per curiam
None of the assignments of error in regard to the admission of evidence are in conformity to the Rules of Court, and for this reason have not been considered.
*142We do not agree with the learned judge of the court below that there was an ambiguity in the written contract between the parties, as to the food or provisions of the plaintiff’s family, or as to the food and fodder for the horses. This, however, is not important, as the evidence clearly shows the construction placed upon the contract by the parties themselves. The plaintiff’s family were provided with food by the defendants, and his…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Raymond v. SchoonoverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897