Williams v. Short

26 A. 662, 155 Pa. 480, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1273
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 22, 1893·No. Appeal, No. 153·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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

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

26 A. 662 (Williams v. Short) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)