Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

197 Pa. 430

Kleppner v. Lemon

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 31, 1900

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1900-10-31

Appeal, No. 84, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1896, No: 188, overruling exceptions to master’s report in case of John Kleppner v. D. P. Lemon. Exceptions to report of John S. Lambie, Esq., master. The master found the facts to be as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. The defendant had notice of the decree of the Supreme Court as made in the case within a very short time thereafter. The date when given is not clearly proven.

Relies on Kleppner v. Lemon

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1900-10-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 1983

3 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions

40190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice McCollum,

¶2On June 15, 1894, the plaintiff leased to the defendant for a term of two years for oil and gas purposes, a triangular piece of ground containing between seven and eight acres in Penn township, Allegheny county. The plaintiff was to receive one eighth of the oil obtained from his land during the term of the lease. The defendant in February, 1895, commenced a well on the land of the plaintiff within fifteen or twenty feet of the southern line of his property. The well was completed in the spring of 1895, and produced about five gallons of oil per day. In March, 1895, the defendant commenced to drill a well on Stotler’s farm about 157- feet from the line of plaintiff’s property, which well was completed in May, 1895, and produced about 120 barrels of oil a day. From that time on the defendant made no effort to comply with the terms of his lease with the plaintiff, but directed his attention and best energies to the operation of the wells in close proximity to the plaintiff’s property. He refused to surrender the lease he had obtained from the plaintiff and persisted in his scheme for draining the oil from the land of his lessor. In the execution of this scheme he was successful, and when the drainage of the oil was accom*434plished lie abandoned the lease, and appeared to consider that his obligations to the lessor were canceled.

¶3It is now contended by the defendant that the decision of this court in Kleppner v. Lemon, 176 Pa. 502, operated as a discharge of his liability when he surrendered the lease as above stated. This contention, however, is not supported by the decision referred to. The modifications of the decree appealed from in that case were slight and did not annul or in any manner abridge the appointment of the master and examiner whose duties were the same subsequent to the decision aforesaid as before the appeal on which it was based. It is plain enough that nothing appears in the decision of the court in Kleppner v. Lemon, 176 Pa. 502, which in any degree qualifies or condemns the appointment of the master and examiner in the case at bar. It remains to inquire whether there was error in the conclusion arrived at by the master and approved by the court below. A careful examination and consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law embraced in the report has failed to convince us of error in either. We therefore dismiss the specifications of error.

¶4Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellants

/197/pa/430 · .json · Public domain