Miller v. Reading Hotel Co.

Citations

• 248 Pa. 541
• 94 A. 225
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 607

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — C onditions — C onstruction — Intention.</p> <p>1. In an action on an agreement wherein a hotel company agreed to pay plaintiff a certain sum of money “out of tbe first moneys which the company shall receive upon .its. stock subscriptions; and $500 monthly thereafter until the whole of said sum shall have been paid. The making of each and all of these payments is conditional upon the ultimate construction of a hotel by the company,” a non-suit was properly entered in the absence of proof that the condition had been performed. There was no merit in the contention that the last sentence of the agreement was irreconcilable with what immediately preceded and must therefore be disregarded.</p> <p>2. In such case the exclusion of evidence tending to show repeated demands for payment by plaintiff and refusal thereof by defendant was not error where it was admitted that demand and refusal had been made.</p>