Legal Opinion

Miller Et Ux. v. Dierken

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 15, 1944No. Appeal, 215PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Rhodes, J.,

This is a second action in ejectment between the same parties wherein plaintiffs seek forfeiture of an oil-and gas lease because of the nonpayment of royalty. The controversy involves two producing wells operated by defendants; the land is owned by plaintiffs.

The first action in ejectment, based on nonpayment of royalty by defendants from the same two wells, was filed November 25, 1938. The trial judge directed a verdict for defendants; judgment was entered on the verdict; plaintiffs appealed to this court. We affirmed the judgment of the court below on September 13,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. State Hospital for Criminal Insane v. Consolidated Water Supply Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  3. Robinson v. PierceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  4. Nevling v. Commercial Credit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  5. Aland v. P-G Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Reiter v. ReiterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  2. Commonwealth v. YahnertSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  3. Khalil, A. v. Cole, B.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
  4. In Re DunlopUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Khalil, A. v. Cole, B.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API