Sistersville oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1896-1901, 1898-11-09
vate the land; an engagement to
le over and play with me, Johnny"

vate the land; an engagement to
farm in proper manner, and to a
reasonable extent, is necessarily
implied. The clear purpose of the
parties to this lease was to have the
lands developed, and the half-year-
ly payments, and the other sums
stipulated, were intended only to
spur the operator, but to compen-
safe Ray for the operators delay or
default"
The contract provides that one
we'll shall be dug within specified
time. This phrase, zone we'll" is
capable of one of two constructions.
1t may be used in the sense of "but
one WE'LL" If it be used in this
sense, as the we'll has been dug and
proved to be dry, the performance
of the covenants in the contract on
the part of the lessee has become
impossible. He can dig no more
wells, and can never supply the
petroleum or the oil. Steelsmith
VS.. Gartlan, 20 So. E. Rep, WEST
Va) o78. "Such a lease must be
construed as whole, and if there is
no provision therein contained, re-
quiring the boring of another well
after the first unsuccessful attempt
is completed and abandoned, the
lease becomes invalid and Of no
binding force il any of its provl-
sion"
The phrase, however, may be
construed to use one we'll in the
sense of a pioneer in series. If it
be used in this sense, the lessee
baving dug the one we'll and then
having ceased to dig any other well
within the four districts, would
seem to have abandoned all effort
toward the performance of the COW
enants which were the considera-
ton of the contract, and so may be
held to have abandoned the con-
tract itself.
The leases, as has been said, in
the four districts all had the same
provisions. The lessee bored one
we'll. Improved failure in every
other respect except that it saved
the penalty, having been dug with
in one year. The we'll itself was
dry. This is the only work done
by the lessee on any of the land
covered by these leases. No furth.
er effort was made. He failed to
establish his rights. His inaction
may well be construed an abandon
ment of these rights under lease.
"A vested title cannot ordinarily be
lost by abandonment in less time
than that fixed by the statute of
limitations, unless there Is satisfac-
tory proof of an intention to aban-
don. A lease of right to mine for
oil, &c, stands on different ground.
The title is inchoate and for pur-
poses of exploration only until oil
is found. If it is not found, no es-
tate vests in the lessee and his title,
whatever it is, ends when the sue
cessful search IS abandoned. If oil
is found, the right to produce
becomes a vested right, and the
lessee will be protected in exercis-
ing it in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the contract"
Crawford VS.. Ritcher, Fl So. E.
Rep, West Va 22o. In this case
the lease was for twenty years for
the sole and only purpose of drill
ing and operating for petroleum
oil and gas. The same doctrine is
reaffirmed by the same court very
recently in Steelsmith VS.. Gartlan,
20 So. E. Rep, e7S. Both or them
are in full accord with the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania. Venture
Oil Co. VS.. Fretts, rs Atlantic Rep,
1872.
The contract we are constructing
is contract made and to be per-
formed in West Virginia. 1t Is a
contract relating to land in that
State. The cases quoted lay down
a rule of property, stating the con-
trolling doctrine peculiar to mining
leases in that State. The Federal
Courts recognize and follow the de-