Moon v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Prom the Howard Superior Court.
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion.
Henley, J.
It is said in the majority opinion in this case that: “To hold the appellee liable for a ratable part of the nnrmal rent accrued at the date at which the well became unprofitable seems to be just to both parties, and in accord with their intent, as expressed by the terms of the contract. We think the appellant is entitled to recover such ratable portion of the annual rent of $100 for the use of the well up to September 1, 1896, but that her claim for rent for subsequent years can not be sustained, inasmuch as at such periods the well was not producing gas as…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Dull v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1899
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. SullivanIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
- Jones v. CullenIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
- Batman v. SnoddyIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. DuganIndiana Court of Appeals · 1898
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.