Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Pa. Super. 607

McKee v. Colwell

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 29, 1898

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1898-07-29

<p>Appeal, No. 20, April T., 1898, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Armstrong Co., Sept. T., 1896, No. 28, in favor of defendant on case stated.</p> <p>Case stated before Ratburh, P. J.</p> <p>The appellant’s paper-book does not disclose the amount in controversy.</p> <p>The facts upon which the opinion of the Superior Court is rendered are to be gathered therefrom.</p> <p>Errors assigned among others were (1) in affirming defendant’s first point as follows :• “ There being no covenants in the leases in suit whereby the defendant here undertakes or agrees to operate the territory demised or to pay the rental or penalty for neglecting to do so, the plaintiff cannot recover and judgment must be entered for the defendant.” (2) In affirming defendant’s second point, as follows: “ Under the terms of these leases admitted in evidence, the defendant, H. A. Col-well, is not liable for the payment of any rent or penalties after the date of his assignment to II. E. J. Putney.” (4) In directing judgment for defendant.</p>

Relies on McMillan v. Philadelphia Co. · Glasgow v. Chartiers Oil Co.

Affirmed · Decided 1898-07-29

¶1Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

¶2The construction of the leases in this case is to be made in the light of Glasgow v. Chartiers Oil Co., 152 Pa. 48, and McMillan v. Philadelphia Co., 159 Pa. 142, in which Judge Williams of the Supreme Court most convincingly declares the distinctions between an option and a contract of sale, which cases clearly determine these leases as options, revocable at the pleasure of the lessee. In the first lease it is agreed that three wells shall be drilled, provided that gas or oil be found *609in the first well, and in the second lease, that two wells shall be drilled, provided that gas or oil be found in the first well; but there is not in either lease any covenant that upon failure to drill a well he will pay the rental. By the terms of the leases it is optional with the defendant to pay the rent as it becomes due in order to avoid a forfeiture. The condition in regard to the wells to be drilled depends upon whether the first well is productive, and not upon the condition that they shall be drilled within three months. The lessee can either drill a well within three months or pay the rent stipulated for in the agreement, or he can elect to do neither, when the leases become forfeited.

¶3The appellee assigned his interest in the leases on July 19, 1894, and on September 11, 1894, Wick became the owner of them with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. On January 1,1895, Wick assigned them to Roberts, who on October 24, 1895, surrendered all rights therein and delivered them by mail to the plaintiff, who has since then retained them, with the authority to “ do as you please with them.” On June 20, 1895, Wick paid to the plaintiff $20.00 on one lease and f5.00 on the other, five months after he had assigned them to Roberts. .

¶4The payments made by Mr. Wick after he had transferred his rights in them, cannot affect the liability of the appellee, whose rights were fixed before that event, and the appellee is not shown to have had any knowledge of the payments being-made, nor did he ratify them after he knew of their payment.

¶5The conclusion reached by the learned judge below in holding that the leases in suit are not similar to the one in McMillan v. Philadelphia Co., 159 Pa. 142, and that Glasgow v. Chartiers Oil Co., 152 Pa. 48, controls this case is, to our minds, correct, and the judgment is affirmed.

/7/pasuper/607 · .json · Public domain