Pittsburgh Block Coal Co. v. Oliver Coal Co.

Citations

• 259 Pa. 290
• 103 A. 52
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 407

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Suretyship—Goal lands — Receipts — Explanation — Evidence — Legal effect of receipt — Admission in pleadings — Excessive verdict — Motion for new trial — Charge of court — Failure to request.</p> <p>1. In an action by a lessor of coal lands on a joint bond given by the lessee as principal, and a surety, one of the conditions being for the payment of royalty upon coal actually mined, the controlling question was the effect to be given a certain receipt and the evidence relating thereto. The receipt was given by the plaintiff company to the defendants’ president as trustee of insurance money and was in the following form: “Received of [plaintiff’s president, naming him] Trustee, One thousand seventy-five Dollars in payment as follows: By direction of Oliver’ Coal Co. for its account: $376.27 Bal. Nov. 1912 royalty; $344.30 on 1912. Minimum under lease, $279.53 for Jany. 1913 royalty; $75 for boiler tube cleaner.” A fire had occurred on the leased premises and the insurance company paid the amount of the loss by check to the joint order of the lessor and lessee, but before the latter would endorse the check it required a trusteeship to be established with the plaintiff’s president as trustee. The receipt in question represented the disposition of a part of the insurance money by the trustee. Plaintiff’s president testified that the- receipt was given in the office of the president of the defendant company and was drawn up in accordance with the direction of defendant’s president, treasurer and general manager, and that the receipt was not intended as a receipt in full, but that at the time it was given there was overdue from the defendant company to the plaintiff $2,600 for coal actually mined. Under defendant’s objection the court admitted in evidence a paragraph of plaintiff's statement setting forth that such amount was due for royalties on coal mined, on the ground that the averments of such paragraph were not sufficiently or specifically denied in t