Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): has been described as “collateral, subordinate and incidental in character.” Bassell v. W.Va. Cent. Gas Co., 86 W.Va. 198, 103 S.E. 116, 118 (1920). Thus, a lessor’s right to free gas generally only accrues upon production of gas in paying quantities. See Caylor v. Mendenhall, 127 Kan. 290, 273 P. 172, 173 (1929). Several issues have arisen regarding free gas clauses in oil and gas leases, however, this appears to be the first case to address whether such “free” gas must be in a useable condition. Often the dispute concerns the interpretation of “a principal dwelling” in the lease language, the source free gas, the quantity of free gas, or the geographic scope of the use of free gas. See, e.g., D.R. Lauck Oil Co. v. Breitenbach, 20 Kan.App.2d 877, 879-80, 893 P.2d 286, 289 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Richardson v. Nw. Cent. Pipeline Corp., 241 
 Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiffs were properly enjoined from using excessive amounts of gas not contemplated by the free gas clause in the lease (B) holding provision in oil and gas lease authorizing lessor to use gas for agricultural purposes contained no geographical limitations (C) holding a gas storage and oil lease providing for free gas for domestic use at the principal dwelling house on said lands and for low cost gas for domestic use on said lands in the event of storage limited the lessor to low cost gas at one principal dwelling (D) holding the lessee in providing free gas to the lessor owed the lessor the same duty of care as a regulated public utility would owe its customers despite express lease language placing the risk of using the gas on the lessor (E) holding assignment of oil and gas lease is subject to business and commerce code section 2601
Output (English): holding the lessee in providing free gas to the lessor owed the lessor the same duty of care as a regulated public utility would owe its customers despite express lease language placing the risk of using the gas on the lessor