Swint v. McCalmont Oil Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 154, Oct. T., 1897, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny County, June T., 1895, No. 706, on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit for rentals under an oil lease. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court gave binding instruction for defendant. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed. Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
Peter Swint was the owner in fee simple of a farm in Allegheny county, containing about one hundred and twenty acres. J. E. Swint was his son. In 1885 he was of full age and living with his father on the farm. It is alleged by Mm that he was associated with Ms father in the cultivation of the soil under some sort of verbal agreement; but no distinct contract between them is shown. In 1885 Peter Swint made a lease for oil purposes of part of Ms farm to Hunter. Two years later he leased the whole farm, subject to the priorlease of Hunter to H. H. Locke. For some…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gillis v. M'KinneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Jones v. GundrimSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- Reed v. WardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- Linton v. HartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1855
3Cited by10 opinions
- Gasner v. PierceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Williams v. South Penn Oil Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1902
- Bernstein v. ColletrisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Stewart v. CummingsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Willis-Winchester Co., to Use v. ClaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.