Fisher v. Guffey
Fisher v. Guffey
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The demurrer of the South Penn Oil Company was sustained
It was within the power of the plaintiff while holding the leasehold interest to exact covenants which would bind a subsequent assignee in possession of the land, but that he did not do so is manifest. He parted with his whole interest for a present consideration paid, and a future contingent consideration to be paid by Tomb if oil was found in paying quantities. Tomb took the assignments subject to all the conditions of the original leases and to the payment of the rents and royalties reserved, and he paid $500 for the transfer and agreed to pay $1,000 additional if oil was found. This was merely a bonus. We see no indication that the parties meant to charge the land, and unless it appears that there was an intention to create a charge it is useless to pursue the inquiry further.
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- James L. Fisher, to use of Rachel J. Fisher v. W. S. Guffey and Emmett Queen, trading as Guffey & Queen, and The South Penn Oil Company
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Lease—Oil and gas lease—Assignment of lease—Covenant running with the land. An assignment of an oil and gas lease in consideration of a certain sum paid at the time of the assignment, “ and the further consideration of the sum of $1,000 if oil is found in any well drilled on any of the territory herein described, and said well or territory be further operated by the said ” assignee, creates no covenant running with the land, and the assignor is not entitled to recover from an assignee of tlie assignee the $1,000 mentioned in the assignment.