Johnson & Co. v. Smith
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 206, Oct. T., 1894, by-defendant, from judgment of O. P. Venango Co., Aug. T., 1891, No. 62, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for rent under written lease. Before Taylor, Ps J. At the trial there was evidence that, in 1864, D. T. Lane entered into a verbal agreement with J. A. Dewar to pay $100 per year for twenty years for the use of water power to supply and operate a factory known as the Petroleum Machine Works.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 206, Oct. T., 1894, by-defendant, from judgment of O. P. Venango Co., Aug. T., 1891, No. 62, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for rent under written lease. Before Taylor, Ps J. At the trial there was evidence that, in 1864, D. T. Lane entered into a verbal agreement with J. A. Dewar to pay $100 per year for twenty years for the use of water power to supply and operate a factory known as the Petroleum Machine Works. In March, 1865, Lane sold out to Dewar, who, later, sold one half of the lot on which the machine works were located, to D. S. Smith, defendant’s testator. In…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Green,
The lease under which the plaintiffs claim to recover the rent in controversy bears date January 25, 1866, and was made by J. A. Dewar and Z. O. Smith to a firm called Dewoody, Smith & Co. David S. Smith was a member of that firm, and *198the executors of his will are 'the- defendants in the present suit. David S. Smith, or the different firms of which he was a member, continued to pay rental at the rate of one hundred dollars annually for the use of the water power in question, up until 1886, the last payment being made June 3, 1886. In that year the factory using the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Harasym v. Pennsylvania Department of TransportationSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983