Hull v. Lackawanna Coal Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Hull v. Lackawanna Coal Co.

110 A. 80, 267 Pa. 150, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 825

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 12, 1920

DocketAppeal, No. 90

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A. 80 (Hull v. Lackawanna Coal Co.) 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

Hull v. Lackawanna Coal Co., 110 A. 80, 267 Pa. 150, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 825 (Pa. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The learned chancellor found that the weight of the evidence warranted the conclusion that the coal in controversy is part of a single vein, and it was admitted by learned counsel for the appellants, on the argument of this appeal, that there was evidence to support such a finding. For this reason alone their bill might have been properly dismissed. The decree dismissing it is affirmed, on the fourth conclusion of law reached by the court below, which is as follows: “Face to face with the coal as it so presented itself, they dealt with it as a unit. As such the identity of the thing granted is free from doubt. Any other conclusion would avoid the deed for uncertainty as it would be impossible to determine which of the two parts was intended to be conveyed.”

Decree affirmed at appellants’ costs.

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

Per Curiam,

The learned chancellor found that the weight of the evidence warranted the conclusion that the coal in controversy is part of a single vein, and it was admitted by learned counsel for the appellants, on the argument of this appeal, that there was evidence to support such a finding. For this reason alone their bill might have been properly dismissed. The decree dismissing it is affirmed, on the fourth conclusion of law reached by the court below, which is as follows: “Face to face with the coal as it so presented itself, they dealt with it as a unit. As such the identity of the thing granted is free from doubt. Any other conclusion would avoid the deed for uncertainty as it would be impossible to determine which of the two parts was intended to be conveyed.”

Decree affirmed at appellants’ costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A. 80, 267 Pa. 150, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hull-v-lackawanna-coal-co-pa-1920.