Trout v. McDonald
| Decision Date | 02 January 1877 |
| Citation | 83 Pa. 144 |
| Parties | Trout <I>versus</I> McDonald. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD, JJ. WILLIAMS and MERCUR, JJ., absent
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer county: Of October and November Term 1876, No. 210.
Magoffin & Tanner, for the appellant.—McDonald had nothing more than a license to go on the land near the school-house, and make a single opening or shaft, and from that to take out coal lying between the school-house and barn.
It cannot be held that Mrs. Trout ratified the lease, as it was not her act, nor the act of her agent. In Brown v. Bennett, 25 P. F. Smith 420, the agreement for the sale was the wife's, and the case does not apply.
W. W. Mason, for the appellee.
There was no clear and distinct finding of the facts by the master in this case. So far as they are stated at all it is done argumentatively. This omission has been supplied by the learned judge of the court below, who has found the facts clearly, and as the evidence shows, in the main correctly. We may therefore dismiss, without further remark, those of the specifications of error that relate to questions of fact. It remains but to inquire whether the conclusions of law arrived at by the learned judge are correct. Passing by the question, raised by the first assignment of error, as of no possible importance in this case, we have but two prominent questions, viz., 1. Whether by a fair construction of the lease of M. C. Trout to the appellee the latter was confined to one opening; and 2. Whether the appellant was bound by the lease executed by her husband, and if not, whether she is now estopped by her own acts from denying its validity. By the terms of the lease between M. C. Trout and John McDonald, the appellee, the privilege was granted to the latter "of going on the south end of his (Trout's) farm, near No. 14 school-house, and from there west to the old barn, and mining and taking out all the coal he can reach beneath the surface, and removing the same from the premises, &c." McDonald was to pay Trout thirty cents per ton for all coal taken out; to work the mine in such manner as to do the least possible damage to the land; to fill up all holes made, and level off all banks and ridges, so as to leave the surface smooth and natural. The lessee made an opening near No. 14 school-house, and after taking out all the coal he could there mine with profit, made another opening near to, but east of the old barn. It is contended by the appellant that the said opening near the barn was not authorized by the terms of the lease; that said lease contemplated but one opening, and the taking out so much coal only as could be reached therefrom. The language of the lease is not very clear upon this point, but we think there is enough to show the intent and meaning of the parties. The thing for which the parties were contracting was the coal between certain points. It is a fundamental rule, in the interpretation of a deed or lease, that it is to be taken most strongly against the vendor or lessor. Applying this rule to this lease, it seems clear that it gave the lessee the right to mine all the coal that he could reach beneath the surface...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cole v. Ellwood Power Company
... ... Stichter, 19 Pa. 19; Huff v. McCauley, 53 Pa ... 206; Grove v. Hodges, 55 Pa. 504; Johnston v ... Cowan, 59 Pa. 275; Tront v. McDonald, 83 Pa ... 144; Kemble Coal & Iron Co. v. Scott, 90 Pa. 332; ... Woodward v. Tudor, 81 * Pa. 382; Putnam v ... Tyler, 117 Pa. 570; Hutchinson v ... ...
-
Schuster v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
...the soil was requisite, in order to enable the plaintiffs to avail themselves of their mining privileges'. To the same effect Trout v. McDonald, 83 Pa. 144, 146; Chartiers Block Coal Co. v. Mellon, 152 Pa. 296, 25 A. 597, 18 L.R.A. 702; Baker v. Pittsburg, Carnegie & Western Railroad Compan......
-
Jourdan v. Dean
...writing, referring to the receipt given by Mrs. Brown when she received the installment referred to, but in the case of Trout v. McDonald, 83 Pa. 144, there was no evidence in writing of the receipt of any money, and yet the receipt of money by Mrs Trout after the death of her husband on a ......
-
Alabama Vermiculite Corporation v. Patterson
...the time the lease was entered into. The nearest case in point on petitioner's right to open more than one pit appears to be Trout v. McDonald, 1876, 83 Pa. 144. In that case the plaintiff's deceased husband granted to the defendant the "privilege of going on the * * * and taking out all th......