Offerman v. Starr

• Decision Date: 02 May 1845
• Citation: 2 Pa. 394
• Parties: OFFERMAN <I>v.</I> STARR.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

2 Pa. 394

OFFERMAN v. STARR.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 27, 1845.

May 2, 1845.

April 27.

Parry, for plaintiff in error.—The court seemed to think, as was contended below, this was not a lease; but any words which are sufficient to show an agreement will constitute a lease, Watson v. O'Hern, 6 Watts, 362; and here possession passed to the lessee, and he was in possession, and caused the injury. It is immaterial whether a lease be in fee or for years, or how the rent is paid; the landlord in all cases is equally liable, Wood's Inst. b. 2, c. 3, 266; Jac. Dic. tit. Lease. The tenant would have to bring trespass for any injury, 3 T. R. 767; Holt's N. P. Cases, 543, where the cases are collected; Paine v. Rogers, 2 H. Bl. 349; Lesley v. Pounds, 6 Taunt.; and of course he is liable for any injury done by himself, which the landlord cannot prevent; same cases, and 6 T. R. 411; Littlesdale v. Lonsdale, 1 Bos. & Pull. 404; Lafter v. Pointer, 5 Barn. & Cress. 547; Quarman v. Barnet, 6 Mees. & Welsby, 499; 2 Man. & Ry. 1; 2 Miles, 309; 15 E. 386; 2 New Rep. 446; 4 Maule & Selw. 101; 2 Stark. Rep. 438; 1 Per. & Dav. 103; 8 Adol. & Ellis, 835; Earl v. Hall, 2 Metc. 353, where all the cases are cited and commented on, and the principle settled that the owner of real estate is not liable, unless the business is under his orders and direction. There is no right reserved but such as is common in every lease, to enter and view, Prowd v. Hollis, 1 Barn. & Cress. 8; 3 Watts & Serg. 106.

Læser and Greenough, for defendants. — The question is whether this is a lease or not, and we contend it is not, but a mere grant of a right to work, reserving an interest in the profits; the right of entry shows this. It is of vast importance in the mining districts if irresponsible men are to be alone liable for injuries to property. But even if a lease, if it was for an unlawful purpose, or if the injury resulted from the prosecution of the intent of the lease, or if a probable consequence of the business, the owner of the land is responsible, 5 Barn. & Cress. 547; Stone v. Cartwright, 6 T. R. 411; 4 Burr. 2108; Leslie v. Pounds, 4 Taunt. 649; Paine v. Rogers, 2 H. Bl. 350; Bush v. Steinman, 1 Bos. & Pull. 404; King v. Peddle, 1 Adol. & Ellis; Earle v. Hall, 2 Metc. 353.

The court declined hearing Williams in reply.

May 2. GIBSON, C. J.

The principal question was fully discussed and well decided in Earle v. Hall, 2 Metcalf, R. 353, and nothing is contested here except its application to the matter in hand. It is conceded that if the defendant's agreement with Hill is a lease, the maxim of respondeat superior is inapplicable to it; but it is contended that the thing granted is not the mine, but a license to work it. The words are: "The said party, of the first part, for and in consideration of the rents and covenants hereinafter mentioned, to be paid and performed on the part of the said party of the second part, hath demised, leased, and let, unto the said party of the second part, the right to mine and take away coal from the Salem Vein, &c.," and a distinction is attempted between a grant of license to work a mine, and a grant of the mine itself; which, however, if a distinction at all, is a very...