decided: March 22, 1966.
GIRARD TRUST BANK, APPELLANT
Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1959, No. 3342, in case of Herbert E. Schneider and David Schneider, executors under will of M. L. Schneider, deceased v. Girard Trust Bank.
Jack B. Justice, with him Drinker, Biddle & Reath, for appellant.
M. Melvin Shralow, with him Theodore R. Mann, and Folz, Bard, Kamsler, Goodis & Greenfield, for appellees.
Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ.
Author: Per Curiam
[ 420 Pa. Page 637]
In this case the trial court submitted to the jury the question whether the several agreements between the parties hereto would permit recovery by the plaintiffs. This required that the jury resolve the ambiguity resulting from the manner in which the agreements were drawn. The jury in its verdict gave recovery to the plaintiffs.
Appellant now contends that the interpretation of the agreements should not have been submitted to the jury but should have been made by the court.
If this be error, it is harmless error since the lower court, in its opinion for the court en banc, indicated that had it chosen to resolve the ambiguity presented by the agreements its decision would have been the same as that of the jury.
We have carefully considered the other questions presented by the appellant, and find that they were properly determined below.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.