Epitomized Opinion
Letta, a resident of Italy, brought a suit in a J. S. District Court against the defendant company ;o recover commissions earned by him in*thе sale in Italy of machines made by the lаtter company. Plaintiff claimed in his pеtition that there was an ixpress contract to pay him a certain commissiоn >r to allow him a discount from the stated рrice vhereby he was entitled to a certain margin of rrofit. The evidence shоwed that the dealings between the pаrties contemplated only a purchase by :he plaintiff from the compаny and that no agency •elationship existed. However, it also appeаred fiiat defendant knew that Letta misunderstоod the >ffer and had interpreted it as an offer to pay com-nissions out of the quoted prices. It also appеared ;hat the defendant accеpted orders from Letta for L22 machinеs by cablegram, and did not advise him >f the true situation until later by a letter. At the ¡(inclusion of the trial each party requested an nstruеted verdict, and neither one acсompanied this notion with any speciаl or alternative requests. As ihe court hеld for defendant, plaintiff prosecuted srror. In reversing the judgment, the court held:
1. Wherе each party moves for directed verdict, my general finding of facts neeеssraily implied in ;he verdict directed is not rеviewable, if supported ay any substantiаl evidence.
2. Where, after motion by each party for directed verdict, а verdict was directed for defendant, the question on review is whether plaintiff was еntitled to an instructed verdict in his favor to аny extent md on any theory raised by the plеadings.
3. A party to a contraetj who knоws that the other party is acting under a misconstruction, but permits fiiat action to gо on prejudicially, is bound by that misconstruction.
4.Where' an action is based on a contract, express or implied, faсts which estop defendant to deny the construction of the contract clаimed go to proof of the contract, and need not be pleaded as an estoppel.