Opinion
April 12, 1945.
May 21. 1945
Contracts — Written contracts — Construction.
A written contract is to be construed by the court as a matter of law.
Argued April 12, 1945.
Before MAXEY, C. J., DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, STEARNE and JONES, JJ.
Appeal, No. 213, Jan. T., 1944, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1941, No. 227, in case of Joseph R. Siegert et al., trading as Modern Products Company, v. Servel, Inc. Judgment affirmed.
Assumpsit. Before ALESSANDRONI, J., without a jury.
Compulsory nonsuit entered. Motion by plaintiffs to take off nonsuit dismissed. Plaintiffs appealed.
Harry A. Takiff, with him Michael Edelman and Myron Jacoby, for appellants.
J. B. Colahan, with him Townsend, Elliott Munson, for appellee.
There is no merit in this appeal. The action arose out of a disagreement concerning the meaning of certain terms in a written contract, prepared and entered into by the parties with the greatest care. Plaintiff contends that the agreement is a divisible one. Defendant insists that the contract in its general features is entire. The learned court below, interpreting the contract as a matter of law, as it was bound to do, found that the contract is entire and indivisible, and that such was the manifest intention of the parties. We are of the same opinion. Huselton v. Eddie Bald M. Car Co., 81 Pa. Super. 526. A decision on this point decides the appeal. The facts and law of the case are considered in detail in the able opinion of Judge SMITH of the learned court below.
Judgment affirmed; costs to be paid by appellant.