Kendig v. Roberts
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Kendig v. Roberts, 187 Pa. 339 (Pa. 1898)
40 A. 1022; 1898 Pa. LEXIS 813
Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Pee, Stbreett
Kendig v. Roberts
Opinion of the Court
This case was ably and correctly tried. Our consideration of the record, with special reference to each of the specifications, has satisfied us that neither of them can be sustained. All that can be profitably said in relation to either of the questions involved is contained in the opinion of the learned trial judge refusing the motion for new trial and directing judgment on the •verdict.
For reasons there given the specifications are overruled and judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Walter H. Kendig, Henry W. Myers and John E. Cobaugh, trading as W. H. Kendig & Company v. George Roberts
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Contract — Contradictions in written contract -Parol testimony — Province of court and jury. Where a written contract refers to plans, specifications, drawings and a bill of items, and it appears upon inspection that the bill of items is contradictory of the specifications and drawings, parol testimony is admissible to detei'mine which paper was intended by the parties to govern, and the question is one of fact for the jury, and not one of construction of written terms for the court.