Williams v. Short

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Williams v. Short, 155 Pa. 480 (Pa. 1893)
26 A. 662; 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1273
Dean, McCollum, Mitchell, Thompson, Williams

Williams v. Short

Opinion of the Court

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.

Reference

Cited By
7 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Actions—Parties—Administrator. An administrator whose account has been filed and confirmed, but who has not been discharged, has a right to sue for a debt due the decedent. Oil lease—Covenant—Assignment—Statute of limitations. Covenants to pay royalty in an oil lease run with the land, and are binding upon the assignee who has received the production from the wells; and the statute of limitations does not apply to a suit for royalties.