Comegys v. Russell

Citations

• 185 Pa. 283
• 39 A. 956
• 1898 Pa. LEXIS 706

Syllabus

<p>Mines and mining — Goal lease — Royalty—Evidence—Question for jury.</p> <p>In 1887 R. made a coal lease to D. which provided for the payment of royalties every six months, and a forfeiture of the lease if royalties due remained unpaid for twelve months. On July 1, 1891, D. gave an option to plaintiffs to purchase his lease, one of the conditions being that they should test the character of veins upon the tract by boring down through them. On January 14, 1892, D. entered into an agreement in writing with the plaintiffs almost identical in terms with the agreement of July 1, 1891, except that the minimum amount of coal required to be mined each year was different. This agreement, although executed on January 14, 1892, was dated July 1, 1891. On April 25, 1892, after the boring had been done, plaintiffs notified D. that they accepted the lease signed on July 1, 1891. In July, 1893, plaintiffs offered to pay any royalties due. The lessor said there was nothing due, but if there were he would not take it from the plaintiffs. In September, 1893, the lessor re-entered for the nonpayment of royalties within twelve months after they had fallen due. There was some evidence that no royalties were due at the time the forfeiture was declared and the re-entry made. There was also evidence that the plaintiffs expended time and money on the property upon the faith of the alleged declarations of the defendants that no royalties were due. The evidence was conflicting as to whether the notice of April 5, 1892, referred to the lease signed on July 1, 1891, or to that signed on January 14, 1892. Held, that a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in an action of ejectment should be sustained against the lessor.</p>