Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Braddock Wire Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 3, 1893

Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Braddock Wire Co., 155 Pa. 22 (Pa. 1893)

25 A. 749; 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1171

Ctjeiam, Green, Heydrick, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Pee Ctjeiam,

The principal contention in this ease was, whether, under the contract of 1889 the tonnage on which the gas bills were based was upon the steel billets that were used, that is, the raw material, or the product of it. The learned judge below instructed the jury that the tonnage was to be based upon the product. The able argument of appellant’s counsel has failed to satisfy us that this instruction was erroneous.

*25There were a number of other items in plaintiff’s claim, which it is alleged were not included in the contract, and for which the defendant company should pay. Some of these claims were sustained in part by the learned judge of the court below and others were submitted to the jury under fair instructions. We do not think it is necessary to discuss them in detail. The appellant complains of that portion of the charge of the learned judge, embodied in the seventh specification, in which he refers to the course of dealing between these parties. We do not think this reference objectionable. It was used to illustrate the construction placed upon this contract by the parties themselves ; when we are asked to say what the parties meant or intended by their contract, it is entirely safe to point to their own construction of it, as evidenced by their course of dealing under it.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Cited By: 27 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Construction of contract—Natural gas. A company engaged in making wire entered into a contract with a natural gas company by which the gas company agreed to furnish gas “ to be used in heating iron and steel billets for making wire rods and for annealing and for drying wire. Boilers to be used for making steam to roll, draw, twist and cut wire and to pump water for the works.” The wire company agreed to pay a certain price per ton “ for all iron or steel made from billets into wire,” and another price per ton “ for all iron or steel made from billets into wire rods, which is not made into wire.” Held, that the tonnage upon the basis of which the gas was to be paid for was the tonnage of the finished product, and not of the steel billets from which the finished product was made. Construction of contract by parties as shown by their course of dealing. In construing such a contract, it was not error for the court in its charge to refer to the uniform practice of the parties both under the contract in question and under prior contracts to accept reports and payments on the finished products, as evidence of the construction which the parties themselves placed upon the contract.