Addleman v. Light & Heat Co.

Citations

• 242 Pa. 587
• 89 A. 674
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 697

Syllabus

<p>Assumpsit — Oil and gas leases — Rentals—Fraud—Charge to jury —Erroneous charge — Construction of written instrument — Court and jury.</p> <p>1. While it is true that fraud may be shown by circumstantial evidence, it is well settled that fraud is never to be presumed but must always be proved, and the jury should not be allowed to find the existence of fraud in the absence of allegation or evidence of its existence.</p> <p>2. The construction of a written contract is for the court, not the jury and it is error to leave to the jury a question involving the construction of such a contract, when there is no disputed question of fact relating thereto.</p> <p>3. In an action of assumpsit to recover the amount of rental alleged to be due under an oil and gas lease, wherein it was provided that the rental, which was to be based on the pressure of gas, was to be ascertained by gauging the well in the casing in which it was completed, it appeared that a 6%-inch casing was in use at the completion of the well, and that thereafter an iron tubing of 3-inch diameter was run through the casing to protect it from excessive pressure. There was no charge of fraud in plaintifi’s statement and nothing to indicate fraudulent act or purpose of any kind on the part of the defendant. The court instructed the jury that if the putting in of the 3-inch tubing was a fraud and intended for the purpose of taking an undue advantage, then it could not succeed, and the jury should not accept it. Held, that such instruction was error.</p> <p>4. In such a case where there is evidence that by taking the pressure in a 3-inch tubing and using a well known mathematical formula, the practical equivalent could be obtained for the pressure in the 6%-inch casing, it is a question of fact for the jury whether the insertion of the 3-inch tubing inside the 6%-inch casing, made it impossible to ascertain, within the meaning of the contract, what the pressure was in the latter.</p>