Williams v. Short

26 A. 662, 155 Pa. 480, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1273
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 22, 1893
DocketAppeal, No. 153
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 26 A. 662 (Williams v. Short) 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
Williams v. Short, 26 A. 662, 155 Pa. 480, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1273 (Pa. 1893).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff was legally competent to bring this suit. He had settled an account, but he had not been discharged from the trust which his appointment imposed. It sufficiently appeared that Short was the assignee of the lease, and received the production from the wells upon the leasehold. It was his duty to account for the royalty reserved. This he had not done. The case appears to have been carefully tried by the learned judge of the court below, and the result reached is fully justified by the evidenee. We see no error that requires us to dis turb the judgment and it is accordingly affirmed.

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

Related

Nigro v. Don-Mar Corp.
85 A.2d 21 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1951)
Keystone Trust Co. v. Aaronson
51 Pa. D. & C. 273 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1944)
Commonwealth v. Hughes
25 Pa. D. & C. 210 (Tioga County Court of Common Pleas, 1935)
Novice v. Alter
139 A. 590 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Pierce Fordyce Oil Ass'n v. Woodrum
188 S.W. 245 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Hall v. Haines
43 Pa. Super. 213 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1910)
Potter Gas Co. v. Dunshie
42 Pa. Super. 457 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 A. 662, 155 Pa. 480, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-short-pa-1893.