Jamestown & Franklin R. R. v. Egbert
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Doll v. Ryder (Pa. Super. Ct. 1935)
- Watchorn v. Roxana Petroleum Corporation (8th Cir. 1925)
- Fisher v. Maple Block Coal Co. (Iowa 1918)
- Higgins v. Grant (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
- C. Trevor Dunham, Inc. v. Pursel (Columbia County Court of Common Pleas 1929)
- Afton v. Hanley (Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas 1929)
- Manieri v. City of Philadelphia (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1928)
- W. J. Gilmore Drug Co. v. Goldsmith (Pa. Super. Ct. 1922)
- Storey v. Lonabaugh (Pa. 1915)
- Edmundson v. Singer Sewing Machine Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1912)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We think the offers of evidence referred to in the first and fourth specifications were properly rejected. The test of surrounding property was not the test required by the lease. It does not follow that because there was no oil on adjoining property, oil might not have been struck on this large tract.
The offer to show authority from the plaintiff to Getzendanner to release the appellants did not go far enough, and the court below was right in rejecting it. Neither was it competent to show an abandonment of the property under the terms of the lease.
Nor was it competent to show that a number of persons had misunderstood some of the earlier decisions of this court. See third specification.
Nor do we agree with the appellants’ construction of the word “ retained ” as contained in the lease. We think it refers to the right to operate for oil on the premises. This right the appellants “ retained ” so long as they failed to make a formal surrender.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.