Ahrens v. Goldstein

• Decision Date: 04 January 1954
• Citation: 376 Pa. 114,102 A.2d 164
• Parties: AHRENS et ux. v. GOLDSTEIN et al.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 164

102 A.2d 164

376 Pa. 114

AHRENS et ux. v. GOLDSTEIN et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 4, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 3, 1954.

Louis Vaira, George S. Goldstein, Pittsburgh, Rynd & Olmes, Oil City, for appellants.

Breene, Brewster & Breene, E. C. Breene, McGill & McGill, Oil City, for appellees.

Before STERN, C. J., and STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.

CHIDSEY, Justice.

This appeal is from the refusal of the court below to open a judgment entered against the appellants in an amicable action of ejectment upon a warrant of attorney contained in an oil and gas lease.

On December 19, 1949, the Continental Oil Company of Philadelphia conveyed certain premises in President Township, Venango County, known as the Continental Farm, to Julius Ahrens and Bessie Ahrens, his wife, the appellees, by a deed which was recorded on December 29, 1949. The conveyance was made subject to a certain oil and gas lease for twenty years, executed by the appellees' grantor to one Jacob Goldstein, father of two of the appellants, dated October 17, 1916. At the time of the aforesaid conveyance, these appellants George Goldstein and his sister, Lillian Goldstein, were operating the premises, which contained some twenty-seven oil wells, two pressure wells and two power wells, for the production of oil and gas.

George Goldstein and his sister Lillian and one Thomas V. Penner, the other appellant, on November 1, 1943 had been granted by the Continental Oil Company for the term of twenty years the exclusive right and privilege of mining and drilling for carbon oil and petroleum on the entire tract. This lease was not recorded until April 16, 1951. It contained, inter alia, an agreement on the part of the lessees to maintain constant operations for the production of oil from the premises during the continuance of the lease, with a provision that a suspension of such operations for the space of thirty days at any one time without the consent in writing of the landowners should be deemed an abandonment of the permises and the relinquishment and forfeiture of all the rights and privileges granted in the lease. Time was made of the essence.

It further provided that if the lessees should fail for a space of thirty days at any one time in the due performance of any one of the covenants and agreements that, then, and in either such case of failure or breach, the lease and all rights and privileges should immediately terminate and become null and void.

The lease also provided that in order that the lessors could obtain prompt possession of the premises in the event of default, the lessees authorized and empowered any attorney of any court of record as attorney for the lessees, to enter in any competent court an amicable action and judgment in ejectment against the lessees and all persons claiming under them for the recovery of the possession demised.

The lease was operated and royalties paid to the appellees until November, 1950. On November 23, 1950, there was an unusually heavy fall of snow in President Township and most sections of western Pennsylvania, and from that date until the present time the defendants have not operated for oil under the lease. Several letters were sent by counsel for the appellees to George Goldstein between November 28, 1950, and June 26, 1951 wherein the appellees claimed exclusive possession, at first on the ground that the lease of October 17, 1916 had expired ¹ and later on the ground of abandonment and forfeiture for failure to operate for thirty days under the terms of the lease of November 1, 1943.

Subsequent to a letter written by appellees' counsel to the appellant George Goldstein dated January 5, 1951, the appellees posted 'No Trespassing' signs on the property, constructed a 33 foot wide road about 4,700 feet in length over the southerly portion of the land, laid out a plan of 100 lots on the property along the line of the road and also granted a right of way for the erection and maintenance of an electric line to the Pennsylvania Electric Company.

On July 17, 1951 the appellants instituted an action in equity to restrain the appellees from interfering with their operation of the lease for oil and gas and also to restrain the appellees from conveying the surface of the premises covered by the lease. The appellees filed an answer raising preliminary objections to the bill. On October 11, 1951 the court issued an order dismissing all of the preliminary objections with the exception of the first, holding that the appellees had the right to sell, convey and dispose of all the property or any part thereof as contended in such objection.

The appellants petitioned for a reargument on the first preliminary objection, which had been sustained by the court. Upon reargument on January 17, 1952 the court reinstated its disposition of the appellees' preliminary objections under the original order and granted the appellees twenty days to file an answer to the appellants' bill of complaint. Between the time of the petition for reargument and the court's disposition thereof, the appellees on November 28, 1951 caused judgment in ejectment to be confessed against the appellants on the ground that they breached the covenants in the lease by their failure to maintain continuous operation for more than thirty days at one time without the consent in writing of the lessors.

A petition to open the judgment was filed by the appellants in the ejectment suit on January 3, 1952. A rule was granted upon the appellees to show cause why the judgment should not be opened, and depositions pursuant thereto were taken. After hearing and argument on the petition, the answer thereto, and the depositions, the court found from the facts that the lessees had not operated the premises from November 22, 1950 and that the failure so to do was not caused by any acts on the part of the lessors. The court thereupon on February 18, 1953...