Opinion
October 7, 1957.
November 11, 1957.
Contracts — Construction — Contrary construction by parties — Function of court.
In this case in which the plaintiff sought equitable relief and also money damages for alleged breach of a written agreement, and in which he contended that in a suit on a written contract where the parties disagree as to its meaning the court must adopt the construction of one or the other of the parties and cannot adopt a construction different from either of them, it was Held that (1) plaintiff's contention was without merit and (2) in construing a written agreement, it is the function of the court to determine the intention of the parties and in order to ascertain that intention the court may take into consideration the surrounding circumstances, the situation of the parties, the object they apparently have in view and the nature of the subject matter of the agreement.
Before JONES, C. J., BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, ARNOLD, JONES and COHEN, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 209 and 210, March T., 1957, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1955, No. 3157, in equity, and from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1955, No. 3158, in assumpsit, in case of Boyd M. Swank v. C. E. Palmer and Peoples Union Bank of McKeesport, Pa. Decree affirmed; reargument refused January 17, 1958.
Assumpsit and equity consolidated for trial. Before NIXON, J. without a jury.
Adjudication entered finding for defendants in both actions; exceptions to adjudication dismissed and final decree entered. Plaintiff appealed.
James Gregg, with him E. O. Golden, Edward J. Steiner and Portser, Gregg Nichols, for appellant.
Charles E. Kenworthey, A. M. Simon, Elder W. Marshall and Reed, Smith, Shaw McClay, for appellee.
The final decree in this case, as modified by the order of May 8, 1957, is affirmed at appellant's costs.