McClay v. Western Pennsylvania Gas Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 6, 1902

McClay v. Western Pennsylvania Gas Co., 201 Pa. 197 (Pa. 1902)

50 A. 978; 1902 Pa. LEXIS 804

Brown, Dean, Fell, McCollum, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Pot, Ter

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

We have carefully read and considered the charge of the court, the eighteen assignments of error relating to the admission of testimony on the part of the plaintiff’s witnesses, the alleged error in the charge referring to the excerpt in the nineteenth assignment and the refusal of the court to affirm the defendant’s fifth and sixth points. We have not discovered in either of the eighteen assignments any cause for a reversal of the judgment, any error in the excerpt from the charge, or in the refusal to affirm the defendant’s fifth and sixth points: The charge of the court was carefully presented and considered at every point and the defendants have no cause to complain of the verdict or judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: McClay v. Western Pennsylvania Gas Company
Cited By: 3 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Oil and gas lease—Covenant—Sublease. A lessee of an oil and gas lease sublet the gas to a gas company stipulating that if oil should be struck that the well should be turned over to the lessee. Oil was subsequently struck but the lessee did not take the well, and the gas company continued operations. Subsequently the lessor and the gas company entered, into an agreement in writing. The lessor reduced the royalty on the gas in consideration of which reduction, the gas company covenanted as follows : “ Before finally abandoning said well said second party hereby agrees to fit up the same with pumping apparatus and test the capacity of it as an oil well. It is, however, distinctly understood that said test shall not in any way bind said company to continue the operations at said well, but it shall have the option to either operate it for oil or entirely abandon it.” Subsequently the gas company abandoned the property without complying with their covenant. Held, (1) that evidence was admissible as bearing upon the question of damages, as to the amount of oil found when the well was tendered to and not accepted by the lessee; (2) that it was admissible to show what would have been the cost of drilling a well at the time the gas company abandoned the property; (3) that the lessor was entitled to more than nominal damages if it should be determined that'oil in paying quantities could have been found.