Thompson v. Ridelsperger

Citations

• 144 Pa. 416
• 22 A. 826
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 629

Syllabus

<p>1. In solving tbe question as to the purpose and effect of an offer of a deed under which defendants in ejectment claim, where there is a disagreement of counsel concerning it and no bill of exceptions affording official information, little consequence can be attached to what appears on the stenographer’s notes.</p> <p>2. At all events, the offer is an offer of a deed. Being admitted without objection, the deed must speak for itself; and if, when examined, it does not corroborate the stenographer’s notes of the alleged statement of couhsel as to its effect, such statement noted will not overcome the language of the deed.</p> <p>(а) Plaintiff in ejectment, for a lot of three acres, claimed under a lease for oil purposes executed to C. G-. Beaumont and J. B. Drake, in 1882, containing a condition that the lessees should commence a well on the premises within twenty days, and prosecute the drilling thereof with due diligence to success or abandonment.</p> <p>(б) Defendants claimed under a deed executed to them by the lessors, in 1889, expressly subject to certain leases for oil purposes, inter alia, to “ J. Beaumont, three (3) acres,” without further description or identification of the lease, in the deed, either by reference to its date, place of record, number or subdivision :</p> <p>3. In such case, it was error in the trial court to instruct the jury, as matter of law, that the grantees in the deed took subject to the lease under which the plaintiff claimed. Whether or not the lot leased and that conveyed were identical, could be determined only by extrinsic testimony necessarily for the jury.</p> <p>4. Moreover, the defendants having adduced testimony tending to show that a well drilled by the lessees under whom plaintiff claimed, though within the time specified, was not within the lines of the lot in dispute and did not save the lease from forfeiture, it was error to direct a verdict for the plaintiff.</p>