Snedaker v. Munday

Citations

• 55 Pa. Super. 581
• 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 16

Syllabus

<p>Practice, C. P. — Motion for judgment n. o. v. — Evidence.</p> <p>1. An assignment of error to the refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto will not be sustained where the material issue of fact was not so conclusively established at the trial by the testimony as to warrant the court in withdrawing the question from the jury by giving binding direction for the defendant.</p> <p>Contract — Building contract — Satisfaction of owner.</p> <p>2. In an action to recover a balance due on a contract for building stairs in a building operation, plaintiffs submitted a written offer to do the work for $544. Finding that they had made a mistake in their estimate they sent two days afterwards another written offer to do the work for $590. The defendant by letter agreed to accept the first offer to which he added the following words: “I hereby agree providing the said work is done properly and to my satisfaction, to pay the additional sum of $46.00.” The plaintiffs accepted the latter offer and agreed to do the work. Held, that the true construction of the writings was that it was only the obligation to pay the difference between the two offers, namely, $46.00, that was conditioned on the performance to the satisfaction of the defendant.</p>