Sparks v. Pittsburgh Co.

Citations

• 159 Pa. 295
• 28 A. 152
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1510

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Oil well — Evidence—Construction of agreement.</p> <p>Plaintiff offered to drill an oil well upon any one of defendant’s several leases near Ellwood that might be selected. He further proposed as follows : “If you decide to drill any more wells upon said leases or in the vicinity up to the number of ñve I am to have the contract of erecting the rigs and drilling the wells at the prices above named.” At the end of the proposition was written “Accepted, contract to be drawn in accordance with the above proposition or bid; ” and the following words were then added by the president of defendant company: “ This is about right and will be satisfactory to the Pittsburgh Company.” Without any contract being executed, plaintiff sunk the first well which proved a dry one, and defendant abandoned the enterprise of sinking any other wells on about one thousand acres of contiguous lands which they had under lease. They however subsequently sank wells about two miles distant from the territory thus abandoned. Held:</p> <p>1. That the proposition of plaintiff was not intended to be the actual agreement, but simply the basis of one to be subsequently perfected by a contract properly prepared.</p> <p>2. That the fact that the first well was sunk and paid for could not operate to turn the proposition to sink the others into a contract, since a future agreement for the sinking of them was clearly contemplated to be prepared.</p> <p>3. That the sinking of the well by defendants upon lands two miles distant from the leased territory covered by the proposition was not in its “ vicinity,” and was not therefore a breach of the proposition.</p> <p>4. The use of the word “vicinity” in the written instrument, being a relative term used differently according to its subject, cannot operate to change the duty of the court in the interpretation of it, and transfer that duty to the jury.</p>