Mills v. Roto Co.

• Decision Date: 03 July 1926
• Citation: Mills v. Roto Co., 104 Conn. 645, 133 A. 913 (Conn. 1926)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MILLS v. ROTO CO.

133 A. 913

104 Conn. 645

MILLS v. ROTO CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 3, 1926

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Earnest C. Simpson Judge.

Action by H. Wyckoff Mills against the Roto Company for breach of a contract of employment.Verdict and judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.Error, and new trial ordered.

Alvan Waldo Hyde, J. Harold Williams, and Wallace W. Brown, all of Hartford, for appellant.

Allan E. Brosmith, of Hartford, for appellee.

HINMAN, J.

The plaintiff, in the first count of his amended complaint alleged a contract that the defendant" should employ the plaintiff for the period of one year and pay him for his services an annual salary of $3,500," that this agreement was made in part by letter, attached to the complaint, and in part by a verbal agreement between the parties, and that the defendant, before the expiration of the year, discharged the plaintiff without just cause.A second count included in the complaint was abandoned on the trial.

The defendant demurred on the ground that it appeared from the complaint and exhibits attached that the employment of the plaintiff was for an indefinite time.The demurrer was overruled, the defendant answered, admitting the letters but denying all the other allegations, and the case was tried to the jury with the result above stated.

The first reason of appeal, other than the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict, concerns the overruling of the demurrer.As to this, it need only be said that, since the complaint alleged an agreement partly in writing and partly by parol, the resulting contract could not be tested, as the demurrer attempted to do, solely by the writings, which under the complaint as framed might be supplemented or affected by subsequent oral agreements, or the interpretation of which might be elucidated by circumstances attending the writing of the letters.O'Loughlin v. Poli,82 Conn. 427, 432, 74 A. 763;Jacobson v. Hendricks,83 Conn. 120, 75 A. 85;Grant v. New Departure Mfg. Co.,85 Conn. 421, 83 A. 212.For the same reason the admission in evidence of such circumstances, for the purpose of aiding in the interpretation of the writings, was not improper.

Refusal of the court to charge, as requested, in substance, that the agreement in question was for an indefinite period and not for one year, and various portions of the charge as given, are subjects of the remaining assignments of error, and these (with the exception of the seventh and eighth, which are without merit) are based upon the contention that it was the duty of the court to construe the contract, but that its meaning was instead submitted to the jury for determination.

Where the meaning of a written contract is ascertainable from the instrument itself, or where, although the writing is ambiguous, the meaning is to be judged or its ascertainment aided by extrinsic circumstances, and the facts as to such circumstances are undisputed, the construction is for the court, even in a jury trial.Jordan, Marsh & Co v. Patterson,67 Conn. 473, 479, 35 A. 521.But, where the facts as to the circumstances surrounding the transaction and the situation and conduct of the parties bearing upon their intent in using the expressions contained in the contract are in dispute, the court should leave to the jury the determination of such facts under appropriate instructions.The jury may be required, by the use of interrogatories, to find the facts specially, and the court then interpret the contract in view of the facts so found; or the court may instruct the jury as to the construction to be given to the contract according to the various aspects in which such facts may present themselves stating what would be the true construction of the instrument according to the claims made, and the facts found by them, and the jury are bound to adopt the particular construction applicable to the facts which they find.Neither of these courses constitutes a submission of the construction of the contract to the jury.Straus v. Kazemekas,100 Conn. 581, 589, 124 A. 234;...