Prigg v. Preston
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 193, April T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Washington Co., Aug. T., 1903, No. 89, on verdict for plaintiff in case of J. O. Prigg v. John Preston and A. B. Taylor. Ejectment for land in Canton Township. Before Taylor, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 193, April T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Washington Co., Aug. T., 1903, No. 89, on verdict for plaintiff in case of J. O. Prigg v. John Preston and A. B. Taylor. Ejectment for land in Canton Township. Before Taylor, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. At the trial Oliver Prigg, a witness for plaintiff, was asked this question: Mr. Prigg, had you, prior to the time your father executed this lease, any knowledge of any custom in the oil business which permitted the owner of a lease to erect a dwelling house on the farm for the use of the pumper…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion bt
Morrison, J.,
It is conceded that the defendants were lawfully in possession of a tract of land containing seventy-seven acres, under a lease *276dated May 9, 1894, by James Prigg to C. C. Wolf, for oil and gas purposes, and that the land described in the writ is included in said seventy-seven acres. It is also conceded that the plaintiff has succeeded to all the rights of said James Prigg in the said land- and lease. The lease contained no reservation in terms, of the land and its possession and use for other than -oil and gas operations, but such reservation is implied because the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cope v. DoddSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Corcoran v. ChessSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Ambler v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Weld v. BarkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Collins v. MechlingSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by1 opinion
- Everly v. Shannopin Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939