Skip to main content
· 11/9/1891

Chapin v. Cambria Iron Co.

Citations

  • 145 Pa. 478
  • 22 A. 1041

Syllabus

<p>1. When a statement of claim, open to objection for want of perspicuity and clearness, has not been demurred to, no defect therein will be fatal, after trial on the merits, verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, unless it is shown to have injuriously affected the trial. In such case, the proper amendment will be considered as having been made.</p> <p>(а) Plaintiff, suing for a balance of salary as superintendent of one of the departments of a corporation, testified that the general manager of the company agreed with him that his salary should be ten thousand dollars per annum, but afterwards directed that his salary be credited on the books of his department at seven thousand dollars, saying that the other three thousand dollars would be paid from the general office.</p> <p>(б) It was the company’s practice, in paying some of its higher officers, to have only a portion of their salaries appear upon the books of the departments with which they were connected, the remainder being paid from and charged to the expense account kept at the general office; but it was denied by defendant that plaintiff was among the officers to whom this practice applied.</p> <p>(e) Plaintiff was credited monthly, on the books of his department kept under his supervision, with salary at the rate of seven thousand dollars per year, and the sums so credited were paid. A copy of this account was transmitted by him to the company’s president. Plaintiff testified, also, that after the death of the general manager, the president admitted the contract to pay the additional three thousand dollars and paid one thousand dollars on account of it:</p> <p>2. While the book entries and accounts were strong proof of a contract to serve as superintendent at a salary of seven thousand dollars, they did not in any proper sense constitute a written contract which could not be varied or affected by parol evidence; wherefore, the exact nature of the contract between the plaintiff and the company was for the

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • failure to file application for rehearing precludes challenge to commission order

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clark, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.