177 A. 477 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1934
Argued November 14, 1934. Plaintiff brought this suit upon a written contract wherein the defendant, owner of a dairy business in the City of Reading, authorized certain insertions of advertising in the "Progressive Labor World." The contract was dated at Reading and contained the following restrictive clauses: "No agreement will be recognized unless stated on face of this contract. . . . . . This contract is not subject to cancellation." It did not specify that the paper was published in Philadelphia.
At trial plaintiff proved the contract and the publication of the advertisements. Defendant resisted payment on the ground that he had cancelled the contract immediately upon his learning that the "Progressive Labor World" was published and circulated in Philadelphia, and not in the City of Reading, as plaintiff's agents were alleged to have represented to him at the time of the execution of the contract.
The court below was of the opinion that the term "Progressive Labor World," standing by itself, was a latent ambiguity in the writing on which suit was brought, and admitted evidence of the above oral representations to clarify its meaning. The jury found for the defendant and the court later refused to enter judgment for the plaintiff notwithstanding the verdict. The assignments of error are based upon the inadmissibility of the parol evidence in aid of the writing.
Appellant argues that it was error to admit it because defendant did not attempt to show that it was omitted from the writing by reason of fraud, accident or mistake, citing Gianni v. Russell,
In Rochester Borough v. Pittsburgh et al.,
We find no error in admitting the testimony or in the court's ruling consequent thereon.
Judgment affirmed.
Judges KELLER and PARKER concur in the judgment.