McClane v. Peoples Light & Heat Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania November 11, 1896

McClane v. Peoples Light & Heat Co., 178 Pa. 424 (Pa. 1896)

35 A. 812; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1187

Cubiam, Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Pee Cubiam,

While it is true that the plaintiff admitted that he had offered to reduce the rental $50.00 per annum, it is also true that that offer was rejected by the defendant. The plaintiff denies that he agreed in any other way than this to make any reduction in the rental, and he especially denies' that he agreed “ to make it right,” or that he agreed in any general way to reduce the rental. This raised a disputed question of fact as to which the testimony was all verbal and therefore had to be submitted to the jury. The plaintiff admitted that he said he would rather reduce the rental than have the well pulled, but that was not enough to make an agreement to reduce.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: M. W. McClane v. Peoples Light & Heat Company
Status: Published
Syllabus: Lease — Oil andgas lease — Evidence—Question for jury. In an action to recover rentals under an oil and gas lease, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had reduced the rental in consideration of the defendant continuing to operate the well'. Plaintiff admitted that he had offered to reduce the .rental $50.00 per annum, and no more, but that this offer was rejected. He denied that he had agreed in any general way to reduce the rental, but admitted that he had said he would rather reduce the rental than have the well pulled. Held, (1) that as this raised a disputed question of fact, as to which the testimony was all verbal, it was for the jury to determine from the conflicting testimony whether there had been an agreement to reduce the rental; (2) that a judgment and verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount of the rental provided by the lease would not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.