Brushwood Developing Co. v. Hickey

Citations

• 2 Monag. 65
• 16 A. 70
• 1888 Pa. LEXIS 824

Syllabus

<p>Plaintiff leased to defendant a farm for the sole purpose of developing oil, plaintiff to receive one-eighth of the product . Subsequently the parties entered into a supplemental contract in writing, in reference to an existing oil-well on the farm, as follows : “It is understood that, should the oil-well on said farm, on further test or development, in conformity with the conditions of the lease, produce, for 30 days, a daily average of 5 barrels of oil, defendant is to pay plaintiff $250 ; should said well produce 10 barrels, defendant is to pay plaintiff $500 ; should the second well provided for in the lease in like manner produce 15 barrels, defendant is to pay plaintiff the further sum of $1000. Explanation : The understanding and agreement in regard to the test-well being that plaintiff is in no event to receive exceeding the sum of $500.” The first well, which was an old one, failed to produce oil. The second well produced more than 15 barrels a day for 30 days. Defendant claimed, as a defence to an action of assumpsit, that the use of the words “ in like manner ” and “further ” indicated that the sum to be paid upon the production of the second well, was dependent upon the production of the first, and, that having failed, nothing was payable on the second. The court held that the sums to be paid under the agreement were in the nature of a bonus tobe paid upon the production of the oil-wells, and accordingly entered judgment on a special verdict for plaintiff for $1000 with interest. Held, not to be error.</p>