Court Opinion

ID: 9725935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:21:34.839248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:21.634057
License: Public Domain

MADDEN, Judge
(concurring in the result).
I agree with the court’s conclusion. The language of the contract, quoted in the opinion of the court, says quite plainly that the taxes to which it related were federal taxes. The plaintiffs say in argument that they should be permitted to go to trial in order to show that the “intention of the parties” was that the language was also to apply to State taxes. But in their petition they allege only that they so thought and intended. Their misconstruction of plain language, not concurred in nor induced by the other party to the contract, would be immaterial.
My disagreement with the opinion of the court is based upon what I regard as its undue emphasis upon the letter of the contract, and its inference that even though both parties had intended something different from what the language of the contract seemed to say, the language,- according to its ordinary reading, would still be controlling.