Estate of Lazarus
Decision Date | 04 January 1892 |
Docket Number | 85 |
Citation | 145 Pa. 1,23 A. 372 |
Parties | ESTATE OF THOMAS LAZARUS, DECEASED |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 14, 1891
APPEAL BY G. LAZARUS ET AL., EXRS. OF R. LAZARUS, DECEASED, FROM THE ORPHANS' COURT OF LUZERNE COUNTY.
No. 85 January Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, number and term not shown.
On November 2, 1889, George Lazarus and Chester B. Lazarus administrators of the estate of Thomas Lazarus, deceased filed their first and partial account, in which they charged themselves with "purchase moneys received" under a certain so-called lease of coal lands dated April 13, 1871 hereinafter mentioned, the said amounts being as follows:
1,645
$ 6,580
To the said account certain of the heirs at law of the decedent filed exceptions, alleging, inter alia, that the accountants should not have embraced either of said four items in their account, because, being rents accruing from said coal-lease, the items were not collectible by the accountants, and they improperly charged themselves with them. Thereupon Mr. Joseph D. Coons was appointed auditor, "to report on exceptions and make distribution after taking testimony."
On May 12, 1890, the auditor filed a report finding in substance the following facts:
In 1871, Thomas Lazarus, the decedent, was the owner of 105 acres and 121.8 perches of land in Hanover township, underlaid with anthracite coal. Adjoining this tract were 20 acres 114 perches owned by John Lazarus; 34 acres 107 perches owned by A. B. Blodget and Mary, his wife; and 63 acres 139 perches owned by Richard Gunton; all underlaid with coal. On April 13, 1871, said owners, including the decedent, as parties of the first part entered into an "indenture of lease" with William Downs and John Dennis, as parties of the second part, the portions thereof, treated as material in the court below, providing:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hummel v. McFadden
... ... that plaintiff's immediate predecessor had ceased to work ... it did not result in an abandonment of its estate in the coal ... and a return of it to the surface owner. It is unimportant ... that plaintiff, after the conveyance to him, did not assert ... Lackawanna Coal Co., 143 Pa ... 293, 22 A. 1035, 13 L.R.A. 627; Kingsley v. Hillside Coal & ... Iron Co., 144 Pa. 613, 23 A. 250; Lazarus Estate, 145 Pa. 1, ... 23 A. 372; Plummer v. Hillside Coal & Iron Co., 160 ... Pa. 483, 28 A. 853; Powell v. Lantzy, 173 Pa. 543, 34 A. 450; ... ...
-
Harvey Coal & Coke Co v. Dillon
...deed said: "Sell and convey unto the parties of the second part all the bituminous or stone coal in or under" a tract. So in Lazarus' Case, 145 Pa. 1, 23 Atl. 372. Such is not our case. The deed in our case grants the tract for a specific purpose; that is, with the right to mine coal, and m......
-
Wilmore Coal Co. v. Brown
...Fairchild v. Dunbar Furnace Co., 128 Pa. 485, 18 A. 443, 444; Kingsley v. Hillside Coal & Iron Co., 144 Pa. 613, 23 A. 250; Lazarus' Est., 145 Pa. 1, 23 A. 372; Timlin Brown, 158 Pa. 606, 28 A. 236; Plummer v. Hillside Iron & Coal Co., 160 Pa. 486, 28 A. 853; Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co. ......
-
Hummel v. McFadden
...v. Lackawanna Coal Co., 143 Pa. 293, 22 A. 1035, 13 L.R.A. 627; Kingsley v. Hillside Coal & Iron Co., 144 Pa. 613, 23 A. 250; Lazarus Estate, 145 Pa. 1, 23 A. 372; Plummer v. Hillside Coal & Iron Co., 160 Pa. 483, 28 A. 853; Powell v. Lantzy, 173 Pa. 543, 34 A. 450; Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Co......