Mullite Co. of America v. Thornton

• Decision Date: 07 September 1971
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 46253,46253,1
• Citation: 124 Ga.App. 568,185 S.E.2d 548
• Parties: MULLITE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. L. D. THORNTON
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 548

185 S.E.2d 548

124 Ga.App. 568

MULLITE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. L. D. THORNTON.

No. 46253.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Sept. 7, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1971.

Smith, Crisp & Hargrove, William E. Smith, Americus, for appellant.

Ellis & Ellis, George R. Ellis, Jr., Americus, for appellant.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

BELL, Chief Judge.

This is a suit on an oral employment contract. The parties differed on whether a lump sum amount payable at the end of the year was to be considered as a bonus or as deferred income earned monthly on a pro rata basis. There was no dispute on the existence of the agreement nor of its language. The employer appeals from the denial of its motion for new trial. Held:

1. In colloquy with counsel, the trial court apparently recognized that the disputed provision was one of uncertain meaning which could be fairly understood in more ways than one. Thus in effect he found the provision to be ambiguous. We agree with him. A contract is ambiguous where after application of the pertinent rules of interpretation, it is left '* * * really uncertain which of two or more possible meanings represents the true intention of the parties.' Dorsey v. Clements, 202 Ga. 820, 823, 44 S.E.2d 783, 787; McCann v. Glynn Lumber Co., 199 Ga. 699, 670, 34 S.E.2d 839; Village Enterprises v. Ga. R Bank & Trust Co., 117 Ga.App. 773(1), 161 S.E.2d 901. In the trial of the case, the testimony of each of the parties supported their respective view as to their intent in entering into the year end lump sum provision. This created a jury issue. 'Where the terms of a contract are ambiguous, the intention of the parties is a question for the jury.' Superior Pine Products Co. v. Williams, 214 Ga. 485, 490, 106 S.E.2d 6, 10; Summerour v. Pappa, 119 Ga. 1(4), 45 S.E. 713. The trial judge properly submitted the issue to the jury.

2. Error is enumerated on the general grounds. The jury found for the plaintiff employee in an amount less than he sought. Thus, appellant's counsel urges that the verdict was not authorized by the evidence and obviously was a compromise among the jurors. There is much discussion in North British etc., Insurance Co. v. Parnell, 53 Ga.App. 178(2), 185 S.E. 122 about compromise verdicts, but the treatment there is really much ado about nothing. There is no inherent wrong in a verdict arrived at by jurors compromising among themselves. Indeed, lawyers must agree that a very large percentage of all verdicts are end products...