New-York tribune., 1889-12-25
UTLD GAS.
A QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP.

1ne uses of natural gas which have given such
great value TO lands where Il Is found, have resulted
in putting curious question to operators in oil lands
and to the legal profession After some litigation it
had been held that oil Is subject to the rule as to
minerals generally that conveyance of the land trans
fers all the granters right to the oil In ii. But legal
rights often depend upon possession and under the
usual method of exploiting the oil and gas territory,
the owner Of the land leases the right to take oil and
pas intending that while the surface and indeed the
substance Of the earth within his boundaries VIII stlll
belong to him. the oil gas shall be the property Oi
the lessee \ litigation just decided in Pennsy Nania
turned on the question which Of the two was IN
ossessonr of the gas while IL remained in the earth
The lower courts thought that as the lessor had refused
o allow the lessee to go on with his work. ana directed
his men to leave, the oil and gas drawn from the
ground remained I'm the lessons possession, and IN
effect gave him the benefit of the old proverb that
nossesson is nine points with the law. The supreme
Court reverse this and hold that as the lessee mad
sunk the WE'LL and had the gas within his reach, it
ss in his possession. The fact that he did not turn
the valve and let II flow did not impair that legal pos
session. The importance of the technical question WHO
WAS i'm possession lay in the fact that the essee pos
session being recognized gave him the right to an
immediate Injunction TO prevent the lessor from III
tcrfering with him until their controversy as 10 the
lease should be settled; while II he had hot oeeh
deemed in possession lie would have been obliged TO
i, an eiectment suit or similar action to get pos
a.siop before he could enjoln the lessor from ex-
cluding him. . ,,, a., -,
Mr. Justice Mitchell graphically described the rea-
,ive rights Of lessor and lessee as follows:
water and oil. and still more strongly gas, may
J., cIasscd by themselves, II the analogy DC not 100
1,citul As minerals ferae naturae In common
i,t animals and unlike other minerals, they nave
n mower and tendency to escape without the vol
.t, ~ thc owner Their fugitive ana wandering
oyi.,ence within the limits OF particular tract Is
u,nertain1 As said by Chief Jusuce Akhc" III bIONh
uN VI vandcrcrift 20 Pa ST., 141o. lhey bciong 10
~ n,vner Of the land and are part vi l'' ~ ohe A.
~, orc ON or In IT, and are subject 10 hls cOntroi'
Int when they escape ana 20 ny ,I,, ~ the 1or,nor
INC under anOthcrs control, the utle vi uc lornier
mor il gone Possession of the lahu thercloe, i
"t necessarily possession of the gas Al all aaIol,
To- ar even a distant owner, drills MS own aalu anu
.ns, vour gas so that II comes INTO mo Wcil anu
p' Iaps his control IL is no longer yours, put MS.
uhueI so as to between lessor and lessee In tile
oni A case the one who controls the gas mas IL III
liz grasp 10 speak, is the one VINO mas posssIn ION
IT, the legal well as in the Ordinary se"so vi oc
sted by these principles there Is not te
Aonht that the possession OF the gas as ven 90 ue
, ~ H. under this lease IN the companants
rsen the bill fled. They had put ao~a S q well wei
rh,ch had tapped the gas-bearing straIa anu ~ was
,ha only one Oh the land They had u ~ ttet soll
tro Tor they had only 70 turn waive 70 na ~ "Vw
tt their pine ready for The TACT that tei du
i W., raep Il dowing but held II generally IN reserve
u ar affects the continuance OF his water rlsh When
pe shuts his slucc gates. On the other manu-, b1o"n
ia no possesson Of the gas at all HIS possessou y,
%s soIl FOR purposes Of tage, etc., gave D no actus
ne.ssson OF the gas and he had no legal possession
tor his lease had conveyed that to another'