Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-07-10

Opin1on In the Gufy- Hukill Suit-The Law
as Applied TO Land Owners and OIL
Lenses-A Plain Review of the De-
cisIon.
A week or so ago rather unsatisfactory tele-
graphic condensation of the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia in the case of Guffy
ana murphy was published. AS the decision
interests oil men and owners of oil lands,
clearer review of the matter Is given here
with.
The case involved the right to operate for oil
and gas on a tract of 30 acres of land in Cass
district, Monongalla county, leased IN July,
Iooo TO Rezin Calvert and David Wise for oil
and gas operations. The case came on for trial
February % last. Plaintiffs showed the lease
from wise to Calvert running 30 years. or as
lohg as OIL may be found in paying quantities:
one Wen to be completed in six months. and in
ca case OF iailure to complete such well, lessee to
pay yearly rental of so cents per acre, paya-
delay.
- The defense offered in evidence the original
tease from David Wise to William Hays, 1t be-
ing admitted by defendant that the signature
OF David Wise was not at the end of said lease,
lolowlng the closing words thereof. The court
aamltted the lease in evidence as an unrecorded
document, the lease showing Wise let the land
TO hays for oGe-eighth the oil and $40 year for
eacn gas well operations to commence In nine
months or TO pay 81 331a per month, and ending
with the following: And a failure on the part
OF SAID second party to comply with either the
one or the other of the foregoing conditions
InaI n work an absolute forfeiture Of the lease
the trhct in question in May, 1859. and got oil
November 25 1889.
In rebuttaI Gutfy & Murphy showed they
had notified Hukill to cease operations on July
10, 1883, stating they had prior lease. Inc
court gave the plaintiffs Judgment for posses
sion and costs, but the defendant appealed,
with the result above chroDicled. Following Is
the syllabus of Judge Brannon's decision:
Whereas, a lease for years contains
clause of forfeiture for breach of its covenant
re-entry for such forfeiture. demand and re-
entry is not the only mode by which the land
lord may enforce the forfeiture.
A lease for years for drilling for petroleum
OIL or gas contains a provision: 1.-THE parties
OF the second part covenent 10 commence op-
erations for said purposes within nine months
from and after the execution of this lease, or
to thereafter pay to the party of the first part
81 S31s per month until work is commenced
the money to be deposited in the hands Of
John Kennedy for each and every month.
And failure on the part of said second par
ties to comply with either one or other of the
foregoing conditions shall work an absolute
forfeiture of this lease;' and there is no cove
nant for re-entry and there is failure to COM
mence operations and to pay money in lieu
thereof, and the lessor leases to another per-
son.
Held, the first lease is thus avoided, and the
second lease is good against it, as the execu-
ton Of the second lease is sufficient declara-
ton of forfeiture, without demand or re-entry.
The second lessee may maintain unlawful de-
tainer against the first lessee in possession.
Thousands of acres have been leased in West
Virginia, says the Wheeling Inteltfgencer, with
the stipulation that development was to begin
at certain time, until which time the lessee
was to hold by paying rental. For the most
part there has been no DEVELOPMENT, and in
hundreds, almost thousands, of cases no rental
is being paid. The decision of the Supreme
Court of Appeals knocks this sort of thing
IN hon nh
technical quibble that before the land owner
can regain possession he must go through an
old common law proceeding known as re-entry.
The Court holds that, never having been out Of
the possession the landlord does not have to
regain possession, and that man cannot be re-
Quired to enter on himself.