Pensacola Gas Co. v. A. Lotze's Sons & Co.
Pensacola Gas Co. v. A. Lotze's Sons & Co.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court:
The appellant was plaintiff and the appellees were defendants in the Circuit Court. These defendants are I). K. Hickey, who is the party of the first part, and the John Shiletto Company, a body corporate, Henry Oskamp and A. Lotze’s Sons & Co., who are the several parties of the third part to the contract set out in the statement of the case.
The declaration alleges that the defendants became liable by such contract to pay debts contracted for the purpose of conducting the hotel for the uses-mentioned and purposes sec forth in the contract, and that thereafter the plaintiff supplied gas of the value of $699.17 for the hotel, and that such gas was used therein while it was being conducted under the terms of the contract. The defendants demurred to the declaration and the demurrer having been sustained and the plaintiff not desiring to amend his declaration, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants- and the plaintiff appealed.
The question before us is whether or not the defendants became liable by virtue simply of this contract to pay debts contracted in conducting the hotel.
It is apparent from the terms of the contract that Hickey,, the party of the first part, was the lessee of the Hew Con
Looking at this agreement as a whole we are unable to infer from its' terms alone, or from its terms considered with reference to the situation and purposes of the several parties, that there was any purpose to create by it any liability upon the parties of the third part, or, we may also
It is true the contract in stating Ghipley’s powers says
These net earnings, should there be any, are all the benefit parties of the third part were to receive irom the operations of the hotel, and the considerations they were to give for such benefits are plainly stated, and it would do violence both to the spirit and language of the agreement to hold that in addition to the expressed concessions and considerations for the same they had assumed a liability for the hotel operations and become jointly liable with, or a partner, if not the principal of Hickey, as to such operations.
The first point in construing a contract is to ascertain what was the meaning and understanding of the parties, as shown by the language used, applied to the subject matter. 2 Parsons on Contracts, 495. Ho-violence is done to either any rule of language or of law in the conclusion which we reach.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Pensacola Gas Company v. A. Lotze's Sons & Co.
- Cited By
- 9 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. In construing a contract all its parts should be considered; and the point to be ascertained is the meaning and understanding of the parties, as shown by the language used, applied to the subject matter. 2. One part of an agreement may be resorted to to explain the meaning- of the language or expressions of another part. 3. The lessee of a hotel, and bis lessors and his creditors, who had a mortgage on the hotel outfit, and whose claims were past due, and one 0. entered into an agreement whereby the creditors agreed to forbear the enforcement of their claims for a Stated period. The lessors also made certain concessions for the period stated, or until the creditors should, within such period, be paid. The creditors were also given a lien on additional personal property in and about the hotel. The lessee, Hickey, by said agreement, conveyed to 0. all the personal property in and about the hotel, and agreed, as did the lessors, that 0. should take entire and exclusive charge and management of the hotel, subject only to the right of Hickey, “as innkeeper, to manage said hotel for the-accommodation of transient guests and boarders for the use and benefit entirely of the ” creditors. It was agreed by all that 0. should render the lessors and creditors at least once a month a statement of the business of the hotel, of which he was to be clerk and bookkeeper, and have exclusive charge of all accounts pertaining to its business, keeping also a personal expense account with H.; and that he should remit to the creditors with such monthly statements all moneys over and above the current expenses of the hotel. Upon full payment by 0., within the period stated, of the sums due the creditors, he was to re-convey to Hickey, but upon failure to pay in full he was to oonvey to the creditors, unless the lessors should assume the indebtedness, when conveyance was to be made to the lessors; Held, 1st. That the “creditors” (defendants and appellees) did not by such contract become liable for any expense of operating the hotel, and that it was not the purpose of the parties thereto to create any such liability upon the said creditors. 2d. That the meaning of the expression as to managing the hotel “for the use and benefit entirely of the” creditors, is shown by the subsequent clauses of the agreement, which provide, in effect, that the net earnings of the hotel should be applied, in so far as necessary, to the payment of their claims.