Hamilton v. Pittock

• Decision Date: 13 November 1893
• Docket Number: 196
• Citation: 27 A. 1079,158 Pa. 457
• Parties: Hamilton v. Pittock, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

27 A. 1079

158 Pa. 457

Hamilton v. Pittock, Appellant

No. 196

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

November 13, 1893

Argued October 31, 1893

Appeal, No. 196, Oct. T., 1893, by defendant, Thomas R Pittock, from judgment of C.P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., July T. 1892, No. 150, on verdict for plaintiff, John H. Hamilton.

Assumpsit on oil lease. Before EWING, P.J.

At the trial it appeared that, on Jan. 14, 1891, plaintiff made an oil lease for a portion of his land to John H. Gailey. The lease described the land as bounded on one side by Back river, a side channel of the Ohio river, with bars, watercourses and small islands thereunto belonging, containing ten acres, more or less. Gailey subsequently assigned the lease to the defendant. Prior to the date of this lease the heirs of Archibald Hamilton made an oil lease to defendant of certain lands, consisting of three islands in the south channel of the Ohio river, known as the Hamilton islands, containing twenty-five acres more or less. Defendant claimed the prior lease included the land covered by the latter, and that the well was not on the latter lease.

A large amount of conflicting evidence was admitted as to the question of title and boundaries, high and low water, etc., and as to the location of the well. The lease from plaintiff provided for a rental of $500 for each well on the tract leased.

The court charged in part as follows:

"[Now this is not a question of actual title between Mr. Hamilton the plaintiff, and the other Hamiltons. If it was, I will say to you that with the testimony now before us, my impression would be against the plaintiff; that the weight of the testimony, it seems to me, is that there was an island here, a small island, lying along in rear of this land of Hamilton, in the Back river from Neville island, with a distinct channel between them. The filling up of that channel would carry his title over beyond the island, that is my impression; but, as I told you before, that is not the question in this case, and for two reasons -- there is a general rule of law founded on good morals and honesty that a man cannot dispute the title of his landlord; having taken a lease of the premises he cannot be allowed to show, while he is in possession, during the period of the lease, that his landlord has no title. He must go out. A man may, if he sees fit, where there are conflicting titles, take a lease from each of the owners of it, and if he is not deceived by assertions in regard to the matter he would have to pay both.]

"[In this case, if Mr. Pittock obtained a lease from the Hamilton heirs, who claim adverse title, and probably have one against John H. Hamilton, and being about to bore and boring for oil and gas, and knowing of an outstanding title or claim made in good faith by John H. Hamilton, to be certain of his possession got an assignment of this lease made by John H Hamilton, then he is bound to pay the amount specified in the lease, if he bored on John H. Hamilton's lease -- if he bored on ground covered by that lease.] [Now, that is the question for you to determine, and not, I repeat, the question as to the title between John H. Hamilton and the heirs of his brother. But you determine...