Sistersville oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1896-1901, 1898-02-02

plainants, for the purpose OF search
ing for oil on gas. 1t is true that
Johnston and those representing
him, did take possession OF and
bore for oil and gas upon many OF
the tracts of land leased to him IN
said four districts, as well as il 9th
er portions of Tyler county, and
that he also expended large sums
of money in the development OF
that section, for which he IS enti-
tied to, and we doubt not has re-
ceived the commentator OF the
people living therein. As to the
leases on which heso operated, we
have nothing to do, as we are not
now asked to pass upon his title
thereto. It is only concerning the
leases now claimed by the Elk Fork
Oil & Gas Company, as to which
neither Johnston, nor any one
claiming under him, has ever made
any search or development OF any
character, that we can IN these pro-
ceedings pass judgment upon. The
fact that Johnston acting for him
self, or through others drilled
large number of wells in the four
districts of Tyler county mentioned
| in the leases, may show that he
was energetic in bis efforts to test
the theories he had formed as TO
the location of the oil belt i'll that
section, but it does not relieve him
of the duty he owed to the leases
covering land on which he had
made no search. We agree with
counsel for the defendants that the
testimony shows that the lessons OF
the leases on which the Elk Fork
Oil & Gas Company claim, regard
ed the leases given by them to
William Johnston in 1889 for the
same land, as still binding upon
them at the time Of the compile
ton of the we'll upon the Smith
farm, but we are compelled to differ
with said counsel in their estimate
Of the testimony bearing on this
point, relative to the period between
that date and the institution Of this
suit. It is quite evident that John
ston himseltregarded these partlcu.
lar leases with distrust, at least dur
ing the years 1894, 1895 and in the
early part Of 1895. He not only
failed to drill upon them himself,
but be endeavored to secure new
! leases before he would authorize
others to commence operations
The lessons themselves always de-
sired development, and they were
willing at all times to renew the old,
or execute new leases, if thereby
that desirable result could be
brought about, but it is we think a
misconception Of their conduct, to
claim that it was all admission on
their part of the validity Of the
leases. When we recall the declar-
alton and conduct of Johnston and
Mcclure during their visit to the
vicinity where the lessons resided,
in June, 1895, at which time there
was an effort made to secure re,
newal of these leases, or Of at least
a part of them, it is not at all sur
prising that the owners of the land
abandoned hope of securing devel'
opment under the leases given in
1880, and sought the same in other
directions. The leases given in
April, 1896, to l.. c. Sands, called
the "Paova leases" which covered
the territory in controversy, and
which were subsequently returned
to the lessons, show plainly that
they at that date considered that
Johnston had abandoned the leases
taken by him in 1889. These leases
were due some time after Johnston
had failed in his eudeavor TO secure
new leases, and the lessons therein,
who were also the lessons in the
Johnston leases, by executing said
"Paova leases" in effect declared
that the leases made to Johnston in
1850 had been abandoned by him or
by those who had claimed under
him. The fact that all of the "Paova
leases" contained the following
clause, subject to the Johnston
lease" must be considered in
connection with the circum-
stances surrounding tie parties
when they execute the same. In
our judgement the lessons intended
by these words, to incorporate into
their contracts the fact that they
had advised their lessee, that the
land had been heretofore leased to
Johnston, and that he was to take