Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal & Iron Co. v. Makoma Coal Co.

Citations

• 271 Pa. 394
• 114 A. 261
• 1921 Pa. LEXIS 515

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Ambiguity—Construction by parties — Coal brolcer— Principal or agent — Pm-ol evidence — Evidence.</p> <p>1. Parties to a contract in which there exists an ambiguity have always a right to put their own construction upon it, and if it appears that such construction was mutual, it may be accepted by court and jury, although it might not be the construction the court would put upon it by an inspection of the instrument alone.</p> <p>2. Where the contract is ambiguous, parol evidence is admissible to show the circumstances attending its execution, and the subsequent acts of the parties showing the construction which they placed upon it.</p> <p>3. Where a contract between a coal mining company and a coal broker provided for delivery of coal by the mining company to a third party, and writings constituting the contract were as consistent with agency of the coal broker, as with the theory that he was acting on his own account as principal, as he claimed, parol evidence is admissible to show that the parties construed the contract as treating the broker as an agent, and not as a principal who purchased the coal on his own account.</p>