Gibson v. Oliver
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Gibson v. Oliver, 158 Pa. 277 (Pa. 1893)
27 A. 961; 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1578
Dean, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Thompson
Gibson v. Oliver
Opinion of the Court
There was no error in entering judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. The questions presented appear to be ruled by Wills v. Gas Co., 130 Pa. 222; Ray v. Gas Co.,
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 11 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Oil lease— Covenant — Bent—Forfeiture. An oil lease provided that a well should be completed within one year, and, in case of failure to complete the well within one year, the lessee was to pay to the lessor a certain sum per annum for the delay, and if such payment was not made the lease was to be null and void. A second well was to be completed within two years, and in case of failure to complete the well within two years, the lessee was to pay a certain sum or forfeit the lease. In an action to recover the penalties for not completing either of the wells provided for in the lease, defendant filed an affidavit of defence, in which he averred that from drilling wells in the vicinity it was found that there was no oil or gas in plaintiff’s farm, and that therefore no wells had been put down, and that the lease became void and of no effect. Held, that the affidavit was insufficient to prevent judgment. Wills v. Gas Co., 130 Pa. 222; Ray v. Gas Co., 138 Pa. 576; Springer v. Gas Co., 145 Pa. 430, and Leatherman v. Oliver, 151 Pa. 646, applied. The manifest purpose of the lease was to test the demised premises by putting down two wells thereon. If it was intended that a test of the leased premises might be made by putting down wells outside thereof, the defendant should have protected himself by a stipulation in the lease to that effect.