Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-01-16
RIGHTS OF OIL MEN.
Judge Ewing's Opinion on Privilege
of Drilling Through Coal.
TEXT OF THE GUFFY CASE DECREE
Justice Clarks neath May Cause Change
in the Ruling.
TOw An OPERATOR SCARED THE MINERS

The trouble between the coal operators on
one side and petroleum operators on the
other, is shaping itself for the Supreme
Court Two mighty interests like those of
coal and petroleum mining coming in con-
ficr means titanic struggle which will not
be settled until the Supreme Court has had
its saw Many people have expressed sur
prise that the opinion rendered by Judge
Ewing in dismissing the equity suits of T.
T. Robbins against J. NJ. Guify and NJ.
Murphy. same versus Greenlee & Forst,
Charters Block Coal Company VS. W. L.
Mellon, \. S. Wilson and George W. Sparks
end the Mansfield Coal and Coke Company
" ". /. Mellon, in which it was sought to
restrain the oil operators from drilling
through coal mines or through any leased
coal, vas never published, and here it is,
save the references to decisions and the in
PRODUCTION, which are not strictly material
TO the point at issue:
Abandoned Wells Must Be Plugged.
Il is contenGed that wells cannot be
drilled through the coal to the gas bearing
strata below without greatly and perma-
ncntly iniuring the mining of the coal
everywhere in the vicinity of the well; that
no existing or suggested method of shut
ring OF the gas from the coal strata has been
discovered. The oil drillers, on the OF he
hand. assert that the gas can be success
FULLY and surely shut off from the coal ty
means OF methods and appliances now in use.
The weight of evidence in these preliminary
hearings appears to be on the side OF the
contention OF the coal operators, and yet it
seems to ne that there must be n way of
shutting of the Gas. by plugging and provid-
Ing for gas escaping TO the air above the
su face that should be reasonably safe.
What that safe method is am not prepared
TO say at present. We have found in expert
ence that heretofore all the absolutely safe
inventions ior preventing the escape of
n&tU-0l Gas have in practice failed to meet all
contingencies. Whatever method of shut
ting cG the gas be adopted, the addition of a
means for escaping gas to freely reach the
opsn air above the surface should accom-
l-!uE It. Abandoned wells should be
plugged as securely as possible below the
Fre-port and coal seam and also below the
HittSDuI- seam.
TIE great preponderance of evidence in
the cases heard before me is to the
effect that athe drilling of numerous
wil. seriously affect the market value of the
body of coal il their vicinity. Even in the
showing O. the experts of the defendants
vhn claim that the leaving OF pillars of
from ~ 10 100 feet square around each hole
drilled would make it safe, the multiplied
tloD OF such pillars equivalent to so many
pr'caie the value Of coal field and make
mining more difficult and expensive. even
]. j would be safe. On the other
hand TO prevent the owner of the
everything and underlying strata from
passing through the coal which he has sold,
40 obtain oil or other valuable products,
wlll in many cases, deprive the owner of
product more valuable than the entire
coal.
Rights OF Way Are Defined.
Judge Ewing then dwells at length on the
circumstances of the cases at issue, and con-
ciudes that the boring for oil on the scale
contemplated by the defendants would
considerably depreclate the market
value OF plaintiffs coal works.
lie likewise rather rasps the defendants for
locating their wells so as in their language
TO protect their own land, but in the Judges |
90 get oil from other land than their own
lte then continues:
Have these defendants right to go
through TIE coal strata to reach their oil?
They claim a right OF way by necessity. a
maD shut in by neighDors SO that he cannot
get to Il public road has a right
OF way by necessity. He then asks:
could such right of way for land, agricul-
tural only ut the time of the grant, be
changed into a right OF way for coal mining
and transDo~tation?" think not.
For tue courts to hold that the owner of
The surface has a right of way through the
coal lie has granted, down to coal and gas
or TO search and ascertain as to their exist
Cuce and make the right available, will re-
Cvire lsr-e modification of the rules in
relation to right OF way over the surface
by necessity. Yet my present impressions
are Iilat At can and should be sustained in
q reasonable manner, having due regard to
she interests aad rights of both parties. But
i. cannot be permitted TO an extent that
viii destroy the grant OF the coal nor even
t. seriously depreciate it without ample
compensation. The owner OF the surface
cannot bore where he lDleases nor as often as
lc D.eases. The right Of designating the
reasonable lucs tiOu of the one right OF way
uy necessity, which the law recognizes, has
always been held to be in the owner of the
land. If he refuse to designate such way
rhCu the owner Of the right of way can
locate It or apply to court to have it located |
Cfuny is Called Down.
His Honor continues at length to review
the peculiar circumstances OF the case, and
SAWS:
Gufy & Co, on the Elliott farm, and |
Greenlee 4 Foret, on the Mevey farm, had |
ample facility TO get to the oil without going |
through cOmplainaEts' coal, and it would be |
Il great stretch of the uoctrine of right of |
way by necessity to allow them to |
60 50, as 10y their own testi- |
Innony they could drain all of
of protecting their line WIS nothing
more nor less J3EaIl a plea TO enable them to
drain their neighbors land, but as the wells
IN question We're near completion "and great
pUn-i,rctiEe GAINS may be lost TO the defend
;-a5~ 4 now prevented from com pleting their
"tll~- IL i l"lleF 70 require from them am
pie security - indemnify the plaintiff from
all loss TO his coal field and works by reason
OF these wells and thereupon permit the |
completion OF the wells.
An lll luIctIDH should issue forDilding the |
boring OF other wells through the coal with
out tie consent of the plaintiff and for
bidding IUrthc cr work on these wells until |
srcurt. .ur damages be entered.
.n NOT prepared to hold that but one |
VII r@u be ulilled on each tract OF land, |
TIE rNl of which has Deen conveyed, but
even granting that there is right OF way by
E'te--I-F through the coal, the presamp-
NON l= a-2IuS. amy but well. Circum-
stances may arise that will render il advisa-
bls TO l2ocI.v the preliminary injunction.
- permit drilling through this coal
IeiA 70 the extent that has been done
IN ..la heiT a1ornoou viii destroy the value
o. Inc coal leases granted.
supreme Court on Rights of WAY.
Ii IS not hard to see that Judge Ewing
felt himself treadinC on dangerous ground,
but most people took it for granted that
this WAS the end OF the matter. and that the
coal operators might as well hang their
haIps on the willows, but they have no
thought oi such thing. On October 2 an
order was made allowing the defendants in
the eases above named to complete their
wells on condition That they gave ample Sc
curly 10 indemnify plaintiffs against dam
age.
There are many other cases as well as
those cited above, and the end is not vet by
any means. The naper book has been made |
up in the cases cited, and the attorneys are
John G. MacConnell, j. 5. Ferguson and
IA Watson and rha,- - /