Liggett v. Shira

Citations

• 159 Pa. 350
• 28 A. 218
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1518

Syllabus

<p>Oil lease — Forfeiture—Rentals.</p> <p>An oil lease provided that a failure to commence a test well within a specified time should render the lease null and void. “But if said party of the second part shall pay the party of the first part a monthly rental of one hundred dollars upon the said premises from and after the time above specified for the completion of said well, such payment shall operate to extend the time for completion of said well during the period for which said rental shall be paid.” Held that the lessor was the only person who could assert a forfeiture, as the provision of the lease was for his protection and not that of the defaulting lessee.</p> <p>Equity — Written instrument — Mistake—Parol evidence.</p> <p>On a bill in equity plaintiff alleged that he entered into an agreement to operate the land of defendant for oil under a lease attached to his bill known as “ Exhibit B; ” that this lease had been to some extent defaced by erasures and interlineations, and the form of lease marked “ Exhibit A ” was filled out by his attorney to take its place, and was signed by the parties, with the understanding on the part of defendant and himself that it was in legal effect the same as the form “ Exhibit B,” and that he was so advised by his counsel. He further alleged that under “ Exhibit B ” he had a right to surrender the lease, which right was not given to him by “ Exhibit A.” Ho fraud was alleged, nor was it averred that the stipulation was omitted by mistake. One witness testified that the two leases were compared, and that the clauses providing for forfeiture were fully considered, and that all parties were agreed that under both leases the lessee had a right to surrender the lease at any time.. Held, that proof of mutual mistake was not so clear and precise as to justify a decree reforming the lease.</p>