Coast v. McCaffery (46 A.D. 436, 1899)

Spring, J.:

The land in controversy comprised a cultivated, cleared farm, but its value at the time of this agreement was enhanced by., reason of the prospect- of discovering petroleum underneath its surface. The plaintiffs leased for speculation ; if oil was found in paying quantities the venture would be profitable. If they failed in this •hazardous experiment, their lease would be valueless, and the. outlay incurred in the development a loss. The quantity of the land was not the inducing motive for the lease; but the belief, that it was within the “ oil belt,” and the probability that it contained petroleum, inspired the investment by the plaintiffs. •

There is no'claim that the defendant made any iraudulent representations in respect to the quantity of the land. The contention is that the defendant stated there were either forty-seven, and one-half or fifty-two and one-half acres, and that plaintiffs relied, upon that statement.

Before the instrument was executed the plaintiffs went upon the land; they were .experienced in the oil business and"familiar with the locality. The boundaries of the defendant’s farm were clearly defined; one side by a creek, on another-by a highway, on the other two sides by a farm, one of which was indicated by a fence and the remaining one by stakes. The elder Coast went around these boundaries ; they were visible to any one. Plaintiffs concede they were honestly ppinted out to them before the lease was made.' The'elder Coast testified: 111 think we went up the Chipmunk road far enough, so that McCaffery showed me where the line of the Soutli Penn lease crossed the road. I don’t know but what McCaffery 1 pointed out stakes driven at that point. That was the only line on that lease that was not plainly marked. On the other three sides it was bounded by the creek, by Barney and Charlie McOaffery’s line with a fence on it, and by the highway, and he indicated where the stakes of the South Penn field was. * * * All of it level, so it could be plainly seen. I guess I got under that lease all of the land included within the boundaries. * * * ' I think I walked over this land more than this once with McCaffery, but don’t know whether I went over the land with anybody else or not. On the day following the day I went over it with McCaffery I went down there with my son William. I think that day William, Charlie McCaffery and I walked along by the creek; we didn’t go all over it, but we went at least over a part of it. * * * William was ■one of my firm at that time, and is a plaintiff in this lawsuit. He and I were there looking to see where the boundaries were; that is what William and I were doing there that day.” The defendant •did not state the number of acres in the tract, even according to plaintiffs’ version, but said there must be forty-seven and one-half or fifty-two and one-half acres, clearly indicating that he did not know the precise number. The plaintiffs got the land they purchased; they understood whe