Real Estate Title v. Lambeth
Real Estate Title v. Lambeth
Opinion of the Court
There appears to be nothing in this record that requires a reversal of the decree. The written agreement, set out in the bill, being silent as to how long the same was intended to continue in force, it was clearly competent for the defendant to prove by oral testimony that the parties did not intend to bind themselves by said agreement for any definite period of time, but purposely left that to be settled, either by a contemporaneous or subsequent agreement. The competency of parol evidence for such purpose as that, is recognized in numerous cases, among which are Greenawalt v. Kohne, 85 Pa. 369; Bown v. Morange, 108 Pa. 69; Thudium v. Yost, 20 W. N. 217; Thomas v. Loose, 114 Pa. 35. The evidence on that subject was quite sufficient to warrant the master in finding that the parties did make a contemporaneous agreement that their written contract should continue in force “ only so long as both parties should desire for their mutual advantage to continue it.” He also found, upon sufficient evidence, that defendant, in pursuance thereof, did terminate the contract. In view of these and other facts found by the learned master, there was no error in dismissing the bill. Neither of the assignments of error is sustained.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellants’ costs.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- APPEAL OF REAL ESTATE TITLE ETC. CO. [Real Estate Title Etc. Co., Admr. v. Lambeth.]
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- (а) Patents were owned by two persons, jointly, each of whom were manufacturing and selling the patented articles in competition with each other when they entered into a written contract, one agreeing to discontinue the manufacture and sale of the articles, in consideration of the payment of royalties to him by the other. (б) The contract so entered into was silent as to the period it was to continue in force, and, when some time had elapsed and after notice, one of the parties refused to continue under it, when the other filed a bill to enforce performance for an account, and for the continued payment of royalties according to its terms. 1. In such case, it was competent for the defendant to prove by oral testimony that the parties did not intend to bind themselves for any definite, period of time, but purposely left that to be settled either by a contemporaneous or subsequent agreement. 2. The testimony of a single witness, to wit, the person who drew the contract, that it was verbally agreed by the pai’ties at the time that either one could terminate the contract at will, was sufficient, in the absence of festimony to the contrary, to establish that such verbal agreement was made. 3. This finding, in connection with the further finding by the master, that the defendant under such parol contemporaneous agreement did terminate the contract, were sufficient grounds for a decree that the plaintiff’s bill should be dismissed.