Allison and Evans' Appeal

Decision Date11 October 1875
Citation77 Pa. 221
PartiesAllison and Evans' Appeal. Porterfield and Treat's Appeal.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, WILLIAMS, MERCUR and GORDON, JJ.

Appeals from the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion county In Equity: No. 176 and 179, to October and November Term 1874.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Knox & Maffett and J. Campbell, for Allison and Evans.—A constantly-recurring trespass may be redressed in equity by injunction: Stewart's Appeal, 6 P. F. Smith 422; Brightly's Equity, §§ 294, 295; Scott v. Burton, 2 Ashmead 325. Awarding compensation in damages by a court of equity is incident to the grant of an injunction: Hilliard on Injunction 331, pl. 9; 3 Daniel's Ch. Pr. 189, pl. 319; Masson's Appeal, 20 P. F. Smith 26.

D. Lawson and W. S. Corbett, for Porterfield and Treat.— The legislature has not given to the courts a general equity jurisdiction, and they cannot exceed that granted: Brightly's Equity, sect. 25; Gilder v. Merwin, 6 Whart. 522; Cassel v. Jones, 6 W. & S. 553; Hagner v. Heyberger, 7 Id. 106; Commonwealth v. Bank of Pennsylvania, 3 Id. 184. The parties in such cases must be left to their remedy at law: Dalzell v. Crawford, 1 Parsons 41. The equity powers of our courts extend only to cases where account is sustainable at law: Brightly's Equity, sect. 120; Shriver v. Nimick, 5 Wright 91; Persch v. Quiggle, 7 P. F. Smith 258.

Mr. Justice WILLIAMS delivered the opinion of the court, October 11th 1875.

This was a bill to restrain the defendants from boring for oil, and to account for the damage done to plaintiffs' leasehold, and for all oil obtained on the premises. The master found that the well bored by the defendants was within the "protection" stipulated for in the plaintiffs' lease, and that the damages occasioned thereby to the plaintiffs' leasehold amounted to one-half the entire production of the well from August 20th 1872 to July 19th 1873 the market price or value of which was $9388.89, and accordingly he recommended that a decree be entered in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount so found, and that an injunction be granted against the defendants to prevent further damage to the leasehold of the plaintiffs.

The court below, on exceptions filed by the defendants to the master's report, ordered a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from further operations upon the premises in dispute, and dismissed the bill as to plaintiffs' claim for damages without prejudice. Both parties have appealed from the decree; the defendants from the order awarding the injunction, and the plaintiffs from the order dismissing the bill.

The question presented by the defendants' appeal will be first considered. Are the plaintiffs then entitled to the injunction?

If the stipulation in the lease, on which the right to the injunction depends, is to be strictly construed according to the literal meaning of the language, the defendants' well cannot be regarded as within the protection for which it provides, and if so, the plaintiffs have no legal or equitable right to the relief asked for in the bill. But the agreement must be construed with reference to the subject-matter, and so as to effectuate, if possible, the purpose for which it was intended. The lease was "for the sole and only purpose of mining and excavating for petroleum coal, rock or carbon oil" in the tract described therein. The parties probably knew that if oil was found in the demised premises, a well bored within a short distance would draw off more or less of the oil, and that for the same reason a well on the border or side of the tract would draw part of its supply from the adjoining ground. The object of the agreement was therefore twofold: to prevent the lessor or any one under him from mining or boring wells within eight rods of the north and ten rods of the east line of the tract described in the lease, and to give the lessors more ground for the supply of any wells they might drill or bore on the demised premises in proximity to these lines.

Is it then a reasonable supposition, that the parties intended to leave a gap at the corner where these lines intersect which would render the "protection" valueless and defeat the purpose for which it was intended? If the north and east lines were to be protected, then every point in these lines must be protected; and if so, why should the parties leave at the corner, when they meet an open area ten rods long and eight rods wide, in which a well could be bored, as it was by the defendants, to the great damage and waste of the leasehold? The master and the court below were of the opinion that it was the intention of the parties to secure the same protection to the corner as to the sides of the demised tract, and that the agreement should be so construed as to carry out their intention. This, as it seems to us, is its reasonable interpretation and if so, the defendants had no right to construct buildings and machinery and to put down a well within a few feet of the corner of the plaintiffs'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Appeal of Ferguson
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • January 3, 1888
    ... ... Jurisdiction being acquired, the powers of ... the court extend to a final settlement of the controversy: ... Winton's App., 97 Pa. 385; Allison's App., 77 Pa ... 221; Socher's App., 14 W.N. 381; McGowin v. Remington, 12 ... Moreover; ... a voluntary conveyance is as effective in ... ...
  • Cumberland Valley Railroad Co. v. Gettysburg & Harrisburg Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • October 5, 1896
    ... ... case made by the bill: Story's Eq. Pl. sec. 40; ... Slemmer's Appeal, 58 Pa. 155. Although the special relief ... asked may not be allowed, yet the court will, if ... purpose it may retain it generally for relief: Allison and ... Evans' Appeal, 77 Pa. 221. We are satisfied that, in the ... present action, although the ... ...
  • Wertz v. Chapman Tp.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • February 20, 1998
    ... ... 2 We vacate in part and affirm in part ...         The questions presented on appeal are (1) whether the trial court erred by excluding certain evidence, (2) whether the trial judge ... Allison and Evans' Appeal, 77 Pa. 221 (1874) (holding that it was error for the court of equity not to ... ...
  • Wortex Mills v. Textile Workers Union of America, C.I.O.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • November 15, 1954
    ... ... Hueter, and George Baldanzi, Fred Lauterwasser, Appellants ... Appeal of TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O. and others ... Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ... Michael & St. George v. Koss, 348 Pa. 574, 579, 36 A.2d 433; Allison and Evans' Appeal, 77 Pa. 221, 227; Bowman v. Gum, Inc., 327 Pa. 403, 412, 193 A. 271; Fleming v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The rule of capture - an oil and gas perspective.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 35 No. 4, September 2005
    • September 22, 2005
    ...gas is merely a license was rejected by the Pennsylvania courts within a matter of years. Appeal of Stoughton, 88 Pa. 198, 201 (1879). (20) 77 Pa. 221 (21) Id. at 226. (22) Id. at 224-25. (23) Id. at 227-28. (24) 28 W.Va. 210 (1886). The case is analyzed in Woodward, supra note 3, at 354-55......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT