The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-07-25

The opinions in two Lackawanna
cases recently decided by the supreme
court were received by Prothonotary
John Copeland yesterday. Both of the
opinions were written by Justice Green.
In the case of William w. Watkins,
now assigned to Edward J. williams,
etc, against Emily ]. Moore, admin
istratrix, etc, appellant, the opinion is
in part as follows:
ut must be conceded that the plain
tifr's cause of action as set forth in his
statement Is of an exceedingly misty,
vague and uncertain character, hard
TO understand and difficult to recon-
cile with the facts averred in the state
ment. In the first clause of the state
ment it is said that the plaintiff claims
of the defendant $4,000 with interest
from Jan. is, 1895, and that it appears
fully i'm the clauses which follow.
I'm the next clause he says that in
April, 1889 the defendants 'intestate,
William Moore, was the owner of
tract of supposed coal land in Lacka-
wanna county, containing l29 acres and
u perches and that he made a written
agreement or option with William w.
Watkins and Edward j. Williams
(plaintiff) to sell them the said land
at some time thereafter, and after
they had been given an opportunity
to test the land for coal, but that he
cannot describe the option because of
the loss of the paper.
OPTION WAS EXTENDED.
"IIe then adds that the option was
verbally extended to May, 1890, and
4 h.
life Of the option, said Watkins and
Williams had expended $4,000 in testing
the land for coal, of which $1,000 was a
total loss, and he further says they
continued such expenditure upon the
promise of Moore to reimburse them
afterwards when the amount should
he ascertained. and that it was after
wards asCertained to be $4,000
"ThC next clause of the statement
alleges that in May. 1890, for the pur-
pose Of effecting sale of the prop
erty, Moore made deed for it to John
II. Fellows. Edward ]. Williams, Will
liam w. Watkins and II. j. Brennan,
taking at the same time n mortgage
for $4,000 of the $4,000 purchase
money set forth in said deed, the col
lection of the $4,000 being restricted
not aver that the $4,000 was to be paid
or what was to be done about It, and
it was manifestly defective i'm this re-
speCt The next clause of the state
ment AYERS that the interests of the
other grantees subsequently became
vested in Fellows, who, in January,
1892, sold the property to several per-
sons named.
"The next clause AYERS that the loss
sustained by Watkins and Williams in
these transactions was some $4,000 and
| the testing for coal which was done
| by them was one of the causes Of the
| sale by Moore for many thousands Of
| dollars more than he would have re-
| ceived had it not been for the expend-
| lures and that another cause was n
| fraud practiced by Moore by inducing
an employe to introduce ten feet Of
! coal core from another tract of land
| into the core barrel of the drilling ma
| chine. What relevancy this fact had
| or could have to the plaintiffs cause
| of action cannot be known or imagined
| from anything contained in the state
| ment.
WHAT MOORE PROMISED.
"The next clause of the statement
| AYERS that in the spring of the year
| 1892, after the final deed was made
| to the parties to whom Fellows sold
| the land, Moore promised Watkins and
| Williams to pay them So 600 in COnsid-
| Grafton of the losses tney had sustain
| ed in testing for coal as soon as he
| should receive the 100000 secured by
| the mortgage for that amount which
| mortgage had been given by Fellows,
| Watkins, Williams and Brennan. The
| last clause of the statement AYERS that
| on or before Jan. is, 1895. Moore was
| paid the fun amount of the mortgage
| and that the interest Of Watkins hay
| ing been assigned To Williams, Moore
| neglected and refused to pay the plain
| tiff Williams the said $4,000 and there
fore the suit is brought.
stripped of it's verbage and irrele-
want matter. the plaintiffs claim is
that the defendant Moore owed and
promised to pay $4,000 in consideration
of the loss which Watkins and Will
liams had sustained i'm 1889 and before
| May, 1890. i'm testing his tMoore's) land
for coal, but that il was not to be paid
until Moore had collected the 500 OOC
mortgage in which both Watkins and
| Williams We're debtors.
TT is extremely difficult to under
stand how a valid cause Of action
could exist i'm the circumstances sci
forth in the statement. For after
| the loss, which was the basis Of the
promise. had occurred, Watkins and
| Williams accepted a deed for the
land in consideration that they would
pay to Moore $4,000 for the land. II
all common understanding and i'm lega
significance also such a claim would
necessarily be merged i'm the deed AnC
how there could be a valid cOnsidera
tion moving to Moore to pay $4,000 ou
Of money which another party was tC
pay and did pay to Moore, in dis
charge of a mortgage given by Wat
kins and Williams to Moore is, to sa!
the least, quite difficult to under
stand.
NOT ABSOLUTE PROMISE.
"It is not claimed that this was al
absolute promise to pay Williams an,
Watkins, but only a conditional pro
mise to pay it, if and when he received
| that particular mortgage money.
was not the previous loss sustained il
: 1889, and before 1890 that was the con
sderation, but the subsequent receip
of the mortgage money i'm 1895 tina
constituted the basis and therefor
. the consideration Of Moore's promis
to pay the $4,000 claimed by the plain
tiff. But that money belonged i'm it
J entirety to Moore and Watkins am
, | williams with the others owed it.
"While it might be that it could no
: be collected from them personally /
was their debt and could be collecte
J out of their land. The original los