McCullough v. Ford Natural Gas Co.

<p>EEBOE TO THE COUNT OE COMMON PLEAS OE ERIE COUNTY.</p> <p>No. 113 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 198 February Term 1887, C. P.</p> <p>On March 2, 1887, a declaration in the common counts was filed in an action of assumpsit brought by William H. Hind-march against Edward Hoffman, claiming the sum of 1400. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, with leave, etc.</p> <p>By agreement in writing, the cause was submitted to the decision of the court, without a jury, under the act of April 22, 1874, P. L. 109, and on February 22, 1888, the court, Gunnison, P. J., filed the following decision :</p> <p>BINDINGS OE EACT.</p> <p>On the morning of October 10, 1885, one Richard Savanaek stole from the plaintiff, in Buffalo, N. Y., a sum of money, f400 of which upon the same day he deposited with the defendant, to be returned to him or upon his order. There is no allegation that the defendant knew the money was stolen at the time, and as a fact I find he did not know it. He was after-wards notified by the attorney for the plaintiff that the plaintiff claimed the money, that it had been stolen from him by Savanack, and after this notice he paid it, upon the order of Savanack, to Messrs. Branda ge, Weaver & Bell, of Buffalo, receiving from them a bond to indemnify him against any liability to any other person for the money. Upon his refusal afterwards to pay the amount to the plaintiff, this action in assumpsit was brought.</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS OK LAW.</p> <p>I have been unable to find any authority sustaining the right to maintain assumpsit in a case of this kind. The rules governing the action are well established, and inquire that there should be privity of contract, express or implied, between the parties, in order to maintain it: Finney v. Finney, 16 Pa. 380 ; Wells v. Stewart, 5 Binn. 325 ; Allen v. Irwin, 1 S. & R. 549. “ To maintain assumpsit, privity of contract, either express or implied, is necessary. The mere fact of one man’s money coming into the hands of

<p>Appeal, No. 259, Jan. T., 1902, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Nov. T., 1901, No. 669, on demurrer to statement in case of Henry E. Pittsley, trading as Sayre Lumber Company, to use of J. Hibbs Buckman and O. L. Haverly, Trustees, v. F. M. Young, E. K. Atherton et al.</p> <p>Assumpsit on a contract to furnish and equip a milk condensory. Before Edwards, P. J.</p> <p>The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.</p> <p>Error assigned was in sustaining demurrer to statement.</p>

<p>Appeal, No. 129, Jan. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment óf C. P. Warren Co., Dec. T., 1899, No. 23, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Ada A. Barnes v. Pickett Hardware Company, Limited.</p> <p>Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Criswell, P. J.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.</p> <p>The court refused binding instructions for defendant.</p> <p>Verdict for plaintiff for $7,000, upon which judgment was entered for $6,714.90, all in excess having been “remitted.</p>

<p>Appeal, No. 26, Oct. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May Term, 1894, No. 602, on verdict for defendants.</p> <p>Assumpsit on a gas lease.</p> <p>The material portions of the lease were as follows:</p> <p>“This lease, made this 11th day of December, A. d. 1885, by and between Gotleab Minsinger of the county of Allegheny and state of Pennsylvania of the first part, and J. M. Guffey & Co., of Pittsburg, Penna., of the second part,</p> <p>“ Witnesseth, That the said party of the first part, in consideration of the stipulations, rents and covenants hereinafter contained, on the part of the said parties of the second part, their executors, administrators and assigns, to be paid, kept and performed, has granted, demised and let unto the said parties of tbe second part, their executors, administrators and assigns, for the sole and only purpose of- drilling and operating wells, and storing, transporting and conveying petroleum oil or gas through, over and from all that certain tract of land situated in Hemp-field township, Westmoreland county and state of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows, to wit: . . . .</p> <p>“ To have and to hold the said premises, for the said purpose only, unto the parties of the second part, their executors, administrators and assigns, for, during and until the full term of twenty (20) years next ensuing the day and year above written.</p> <p>“ The said parties of the second part hereby covenant in consideration of the said grant and demise to deliver unto the said party of the first part, his heirs and assigns, the full and equal one-eighth (£) part of the petroleum oil discovered and produced on the premises herein leased, and deliver the same in pipe lines to the credit of the party of the first part free of charge. It is further agreed that if gas is obtained in sufficient quantities and utilized, the consideration, in full to the party of the first part shall be five hunched (500) dollars for e

<p>Appeal, No. 132, April T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Westmoreland Co., Feb. T., 1911, No. 197, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of William Hutton and Angeline Hutton, his wife, v. The Carnegie Natural Gas Company.</p> <p>Assumpsit for the recovery of six quarterly installments due under a written grant of oil and gas. Before McConnell, J.</p> <p>The opinion of the Superior Court states the facts.</p> <p>At the trial the defendant presented the following points:</p> <p>1. It appearing from the evidence that the gas well mentioned in the testimony was abandoned and disconnected on August 2, 1909, or prior thereto, and that no gas was used off the premises after that date, we instruct you that the plaintiffs cannot recover in this case under the true interpretation of the contract signed by the plaintiffs. Answer: That is refused. [2]</p> <p>2. The said contract is in the nature of a grant of the gas in place, and not a lease thereof, and the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist, and, therefore, the defendant was not required to give to the plaintiff actual notice of abandonment to be relieved from liability. The mere cessation of the use off the premises of the said gas by the defendant was sufficient to relieve it of anything for which the plaintiffs claim in this case. Answer: That is refused. [3]</p> <p>3. If the court is not of the opinion that the cessation of use off the premises and abandonment of the well took place on or before August 2, 1909, and that it did take place on November 27, 1909, at which time the casing was withdrawn from the well and taken off fhe premises, there would be no liability, and the recovery under this view of the case, would be restricted to two quarters’ rent or royalty at the rate of $75.00 a quarter, falling due on August 8,1909, and November 8,1909, with interest. Answer: That is refused. [4]</p> <p>4. Under all the evidence the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover and the verdict should be for the