Proctor v. Benson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 184, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, Thomas E. Proctor, from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., Eeb. T., 1889, No. 54, compulsory nonsuit. Assumpsit for royalties on iron ore.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 184, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, Thomas E. Proctor, from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., Eeb. T., 1889, No. 54, compulsory nonsuit. Assumpsit for royalties on iron ore. This suit was brought against Robert D. Benson, administrator of B. D. Benson, on the following agreement: “ Whereas, Byron D. Benson, of Titusville, in the state of Pennsylvania, is projecting the construction of a railroad from the village of Carthage, in the county of Jefferson and the state of New York, to the iron mines of Jayville, to the town of Pitcairne, county of St. Lawrence, New York state, and is now…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The court below committed no error in holding that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was not a lease. The most that can be claimed for it is, that it gave an option *258to B. D. Benson, defendant’s intestate, to mine iron ore on the plaintiff’s property in the townships and counties named in the contract. It does not contain the usual terms and appropriate words of a lease. On the contrary, it expressly provides for the execution of a lease in the future. The agreement recites that the plaintiff fully believes that the construction of the railroad in question would…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Zook v. S.K. ZookSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Eastern Lumber v. Plywood, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1958