Jones v. Kroll
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jones v. Kroll, 116 Pa. 85 (Pa. 1887)
8 A. 857; 1887 Pa. LEXIS 365
Clark, Gordon, Green, Merour, Paxson, Sterrett, Trunkey
Jones v. Kroll
Opinion of the Court
Conceding that there was error in leaving to the jury to find the construction which should be given to the written lease, yet inasmuch as they found it what the court should have declared it to be, and what the learned judge in fact stated in discharging the rule for a new trial, the plaintiff in error has no just cause of complaint. He attempted by parol evidence, to induce the jury to give an erroneous construction to the written instrument, but having failed in. this, he must now submit to the verdict and the judgment entered thereon.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- ALONZO L. JONES v. MARIA KROLL
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Though, it be error to submit to a jury the construction of a written lease, yet if tire jury have found it what the court should have declared it to be, there is no just cause of complaint. 2. A parly, having been permitted after objection overruled to put in parol evidence in construction of a written lease, may not, after verdict and judgment against him, sustain error to the action of the court in submitting the construction to the jury. 3. A lease for one year with a provision that if the tenant should continue on the premises after the first year, then the lease should be in force for another year and so on from year to year, is a lease binding but for one year: per Arnold, A. J.