Martin v. Zahnizer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 187, April T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of C.' P. Butler Co., March T., 1897, No. 387, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit. Before Greer, P. J. It appears from the evidence that plaintiff firm had an oil lease on which a test well was required within a given time or the lease was forfeited unless rental should be paid thereon. Martin met Zahnizer a member of defendant company and agreed with him to take an interest in the lease.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 187, April T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of C.' P. Butler Co., March T., 1897, No. 387, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit. Before Greer, P. J. It appears from the evidence that plaintiff firm had an oil lease on which a test well was required within a given time or the lease was forfeited unless rental should be paid thereon. Martin met Zahnizer a member of defendant company and agreed with him to take an interest in the lease. Defendants resided in Pittsburg but were engaged in the production of oil not far distant from the Martin leases and had some undeveloped…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
The liability of the defendant partnership under the contract as made between I. E. Martin and M. L. Zahnizer, depends entirely on the authority of Zahnizer to act for and to bind the defendant, and not solely upon the credence to be given to the testimony of either.
The plaintiff claimed that Zahnizer was a member of the defendant partnership and was its authorized agent to purchase an interest in the oil lease owned by the plaintiff. The defendant denied all such authority, and Zahnizer testified, that the contract was between him and I. E. Martin as individuals.
The…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Martin v. ZahnizerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899