Straight v. Wilson

Citations

• 176 Pa. 520
• 35 A. 230
• 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1107

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Fraud—Evidence.</p> <p>Defendant bought an interest in oil territory from- plaintiff giving in payment fifteen notes falling due at regular intervals- of three months from the date of the purchase, secured by mortgage. He paid the first nine notes without objection, and obtained an extension-on-the thirty months’ note. Afterwards, for his wife, he bought out his partners in the original purchase. Suit having been brought upon the mortgage to secure the notes, he defended on the ground that he was induced to buy by fraudulent misrepresentations of the producing capacity of the land. The representations made by plaintiff related mainly, if not exclusively, to a period seven months before the purchase, and to the capacity at which the well was put into the “ shut down movement,” an arrangement between oil producers to regulate and reduce certain portions of their productions. The court refused to admit in evidence pipe line statement showing the amount of oil credited to plaintiff from the property for two years prior to the purchase. Held, (1) that as the pipe line statements did not represent production, but delivery for the market, they were irrelevant and properly excluded; (2) that there was no evidence on which a jury would have been justified in finding any fraudulent misrepresentation, and there was no error in directing a verdict for plaintiff.</p>