The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1890-06-26
Landowners md on Leases.

The decision OF the Supreme Court OF
Appeals OF West Virginia in tho case OF
Gully and Murphy, from Mononga!ia
county, Is encouraging to the land.own.
ers OF this State whose land Is leased or
may DO sought for oil purposes.
The practice is that an oil lease Is pre-.
pared by tho lessee, who comes with his
printed iorms, leaving little 10 10 but
ill in the blanks. Tho lessee has the
advantage in this, that the form has been
carefully thought out by lawyers versed
in this particular thing, while the
landowner rarely employs lawyer to
care for his interests. a..
From this practice it follows that the
lease for oil purposes Is usually just
what the lessee intends tito be, about Us
one.sidcd an instrument rs can well be
devised. THERE'S n difference in lcssees.
Some ofthem lease in good faith, others
to hold while they may, meanwhile hop
ing that something may turn up to give
q market value to their leases. p"
Thousands OF acres have been leased
in West Virginia 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 oithing square.
ly on the head, and with it that fine
technical bubble that before the land.
owner can regain possession he must 60
through. an old common law proceeding
known as re-entry. The court holds
that, never having been out OF posses
sion the landlord does not have to re.
gain possession, and that man cannot
be required to enter on himself.
The decision ailirms, what has been
held before and what every oil operator
will appreciate, that there is difference
between oil leases and other leases. This
difference is well illustrated in one Of
the Pennsylvania decisions, wherein the
court showed, what again every opera.
tor knows to be true, that the lessee may
gain his point by not developing the
land, contenting himself with drawing
the oil from under it through wells
drilled on adjoining property, leaving
the landowner 10 suck his thumbs un.
less there has been on the part Of the
lessee failure to comply with the condi-
tons OF tie lease. Here the law. as laid
down by our Supreme Court OF Appeals,
comes in to relieve the landowner, and
says he may declare void the unfulflled
contract, and he need be at no further
pains about it than to make lease 10
another party.
Any other view would be monstrous,
for it would indefinitely tie up land oil
great value, delay material development,
work individual hardship and be against
good public policy. After much specu.
lation it seems now to be settled, ut least
so far US West Virginia is concerned,
thatLhe lessee for oil purposes who does
not in good faith perform bis part OF the
contract may be put aside and cut out
entirely by another lease.
This common sense view is in the in.
terest OF the landowner, the operator in
good faith and the development Of the
promising oil fields OF West Virginia.
The rule is, play or pay or get out. The
mere adventures in oil leases will not
like this decision, but that will take
nothing from its conspicuous merit.