Galey ex rel. Smith v. Mellon

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Galey ex rel. Smith v. Mellon

33 A. 560, 172 Pa. 443, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 797

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 6, 1896

DocketAppeal, No. 78

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 33 A. 560 (Galey ex rel. Smith v. Mellon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Galey ex rel. Smith v. Mellon, 33 A. 560, 172 Pa. 443, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 797 (Pa. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fell,

This action is founded upon a contract for drilling an oil well. The personal performance of the work by the legal plaintiff could not have been contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was made. The work of necessity required the labor and attention of a number of men, and it does not appear that because of his knowledge, experience or pecuniary ability, or for any other reason, Galey was especially fitted to carry it on. There is nothing of a personal nature about it, and its personal performance by him was not the inducement nor of the essence of the contract. The contract was assigned to Smith Bros., the use plaintiffs, and the work under it was done by them with the knowledge of the defendants from the beginning. The jury found that they were not subcontractors suing upon a contract as to which they had no rights. It was competent for Galey to assign to them the executory contract with all of his rights under it, or after the completion of the work to assign to them the right to receive the amount due on settlement. In either event they had the right to use his name as legal plaintiff, but in neither would their rights rise higher than his. The action was tried on the right of the legal plaintiff to recover, the doors were opened to every defense available against him, and in no aspect of the case was the defendant prejudiced because of the form of the action.

Practically the question at the trial was whether the legal plaintiff was entitled to recover on the contract, and that depended upon whether the fault which ultimately resulted in the destruction of one of the wells was chargeable to the defendant’s field superintendent. The jury found that it was, and they had the aid of a charge by the learned trial judge which fully and clearly explains the facts and the law applicable to them.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fell,

This action is founded upon a contract for drilling an oil well. The personal performance of the work by the legal plaintiff could not have been contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was made. The work of necessity required the labor and attention of a number of men, and it does not appear that because of his knowledge, experience or pecuniary ability, or for any other reason, Galey was especially fitted to carry it on. There is nothing of a personal nature about it, and its personal performance by him was not the inducement nor of the essence of the contract. The contract was assigned to Smith Bros., the use plaintiffs, and the work under it was done by them with the knowledge of the defendants from the beginning. The jury found that they were not subcontractors suing upon a contract as to which they had no rights. It was competent for Galey to assign to them the executory contract with all of his rights under it, or after the completion of the work to assign to them the right to receive the amount due on settlement. In either event they had the right to use his name as legal plaintiff, but in neither would their rights rise higher than his. The action was tried on the right of the legal plaintiff to recover, the doors were opened to every defense available against him, and in no aspect of the case was the defendant prejudiced because of the form of the action.

Practically the question at the trial was whether the legal plaintiff was entitled to recover on the contract, and that depended upon whether the fault which ultimately resulted in the destruction of one of the wells was chargeable to the defendant’s field superintendent. The jury found that it was, and they had the aid of a charge by the learned trial judge which fully and clearly explains the facts and the law applicable to them.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A. 560, 172 Pa. 443, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galey-ex-rel-smith-v-mellon-pa-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack