Elliott v. Wanamaker

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 16, 1893

Elliott v. Wanamaker, 155 Pa. 67 (Pa. 1893)

25 A. 826; 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1189

Dean, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per, Curiam,

The construction of an oral contract is for the jury where there is any doubt about its terms; and where terms are not *74used in their ordinary sense, and it is shown that by custom or usage they are to be understood in a different sense, it is for the jury to determine what the contract is ; but when there is no dispute as to its terms, and no ambiguity which needs explanation, it is for the court to determine the meaning of the contract. The province of the jury is to settle disputed questions of fact. If no such disputed facts exist there is nothing for them to do, and it is for the court to determine the legal effect of the contract. In this case there was no dispute as to the terms of the contract. The learned judge below construed it as it was stated by the plaintiff himself. We are of opinion that by the plaintiff’s own statement of it the court below was justified in instructing the jury that the defendants had a right to discharge him from their employment, and to direct the jury to find in their favor, except for the amount of plaintiff’s salary, with interest thereon, unpaid to him at the time of his discharge on June 12, 1889.

Note.—A suit on this contract, brought in C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., was nonsuited, aud a motion to take off that nonsuit was refused in an opinion by Fell, J., 48 Leg. Int. 66 ; s. c. 9 Pa. C. C. R. 497.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Cited By: 12 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Construction of oral contract—Province of court and jury. The construction of an oral contract is for the jury where thei'e is any doubt about its terms; and where terms are not used in their ordinary sense, and it is shown that by custom or usage they are to be understood in a different sense, it is for the jury to determine what the contract is; but where there is no dispute as to its terms, and no ambiguity which needs explanation, it is for the court to determine the meaning of the contract. Master and servant—Discharge of servant. So long as an employer is willing to pay an employee Ms wages, and furnish him the character of work l'or which he was employed, it makes no difference whether it is all of the employee’s work as “ assistant buyer ” that he is asked to do, or only a part. Plaintiff was employed by an oral contract as an assistant buyer to the buyer of dress goods for the wholesale department of defendant’s business at a salary specified for three years. The year following plaintiff’s em ployment, defendant bought out another wholesale business, and the consolidated wholesale business was conducted in the new establishment. The wholesale dress-goods department was divided into three sections under the general management of a person other than the buyer in defendant’s old establishment. Plaintiff was directed to take charge of one of these sections, in which the goods were of the same general character as plaintiff had previously handled. Plaintiff refused to take charge of the section of the dress-goods department to which he was assigned, or to perform any duties in relation thereto, and, without authority from anyone, left the dress-goods department and went to another department, where an entirely distinct class of goods were kept, and performed the duties of an ordinary salesman. He persisted in this course of action for some time, when he was discharged. Held, that defendant had a right to discharge plaintiff. Note.—A suit on this contract, brought in C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., was nonsuited, aud a motion to take off that nonsuit was refused in an opinion by Fell, J., 48 Leg. Int. 66 ; s. c. 9 Pa. C. C. R. 497.