Hamilton v. Pittock
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 196, Oct. T., 1893, by-defendant, Thomas R. Pittock, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., July T., 1892, No. 150, on verdict for plaintiff, John H. Hamilton. Assumpsit on oil lease. Before Ewing, P. J. At the trial it appeared that, on Jan. 14,1891, plaintiff made an oil lease for a portion of his land to John H. Gailey.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 196, Oct. T., 1893, by-defendant, Thomas R. Pittock, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., July T., 1892, No. 150, on verdict for plaintiff, John H. Hamilton. Assumpsit on oil lease. Before Ewing, P. J. At the trial it appeared that, on Jan. 14,1891, plaintiff made an oil lease for a portion of his land to John H. Gailey. The lease described the land as bounded on one side by Back river, a side channel of the Ohio river, with bars, watercourses and small islands thereunto belonging, containing ten acres, more or less. Gailey subsequently assigned the lease to the defendant.…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This case involved a question of fact which was properly submitted to the jury. Neither of the specifications of error is sustained.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by14 opinions
- Koelmel v. KaelinIllinois Supreme Court · 1940
- Randall v. LingwallOregon Supreme Court · 1903
- MacDonald v. O'NeilSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Kepple v. Fairman Drilling Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Lynch v. PerrymanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.