Hill v. Joy
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 178, July T., 1892, by plaifltiff, Henry Hill for use of Wm. Pickersgill, Jr., from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., May T., 1885, No. 29, on finding of referee for defendants, Thaddeus C. Joy et al. Covenant for damages for non-operation under oil lease.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 178, July T., 1892, by plaifltiff, Henry Hill for use of Wm. Pickersgill, Jr., from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., May T., 1885, No. 29, on finding of referee for defendants, Thaddeus C. Joy et al. Covenant for damages for non-operation under oil lease. The case was referred to Myron Part Davis under the act of May 14,1874. The referee found for the defendants affirming, inter alia, their sixth point, which was as follows: “ The judgment in the suit No. 129 of May term, 1888, between the parties litigant in this suit is conclusive as to the amount and value of the oil which the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This case has been so well discussed by the learned judge of the court below that nothing remains to be added.
J udgment affirmed.
2Cited by16 opinions
- Fields v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Eastland County v. DavissonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1929
- Jacobs v. CNG Transmission Corp.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2004
- Hummel v. McFaddenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Hite v. Falcon PartnersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.