Appeal of Union Oil Co.

Warren County Court of Common Pleas

Appeal of Union Oil Co.

3 Pennyp. 504

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Warren County

DecidedMay 21, 1883

DocketNos 66, 67, 74

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Pennyp. 504 (Appeal of Union Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Warren County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Appeal of Union Oil Co., 3 Pennyp. 504 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

— Per Curiam:

These three appeals are from the same decree, and were argued together. We think the learned judge correctly held that the language of the reservation designated a right in the grantor to the one eighth of the oil raised to the surface by the grantees, their heirs and assigns, at their expense and pleasure. Then and not till then was the “product jrroduced.” The grantor was entitled to his share without any deduction for expenses in producing it. We discover nothing in the whole case to sustain any of the numerous specifications of error. The measure of damages and the time for their ascertainment were correctly stated. The rule applicable to stocks on a failure to deliver should not be applied to a chattel like oil. Damages for the non-delivery of oil under the facts shown were correctly measured by the ordinary rule applicable to chattels generally.

In view of the whole case we think no one of the appellants has just cause to complain of the decree.

Decrees affirmed, and the several appeals dismissed ’ at the costs of the respective appellants therein.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Per Curiam:

These three appeals are from the same decree, and were argued together. We think the learned judge correctly held that the language of the reservation designated a right in the grantor to the one eighth of the oil raised to the surface by the grantees, their heirs and assigns, at their expense and pleasure. Then and not till then was the “product jrroduced.” The grantor was entitled to his share without any deduction for expenses in producing it. We discover nothing in the whole case to sustain any of the numerous specifications of error. The measure of damages and the time for their ascertainment were correctly stated. The rule applicable to stocks on a failure to deliver should not be applied to a chattel like oil. Damages for the non-delivery of oil under the facts shown were correctly measured by the ordinary rule applicable to chattels generally.

In view of the whole case we think no one of the appellants has just cause to complain of the decree.

Decrees affirmed, and the several appeals dismissed ’ at the costs of the respective appellants therein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Pennyp. 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appeal-of-union-oil-co-pactcomplwarren-1883.