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

That about the 10th OF
the complainants heard
defendants, Jennings, CD
Glatzua, claimed the right
on the land covered by thu
from Warren and James
that they had contracted for
erection of derrick thereon, an
were endeavoring to oust the com
plainants from the possession of
the same; that they, the complain
ants, then secured the restraining
order in the proceedings instituted
in the circuit court of Tyler county;
that about that time said defendants
served notice on the complainants
forbidding them to operate for oil
on the Wood land, and claiming IL
tie to the oil and gas rights thereof,
under a lease made to one William
Johnston i'll September, 1889, by
Lyman Wood, the father OF War
ren and James Wood.
1t was also alleged by complain
ants that on September the 4th,
1889, Lyman Wood made an oil
and pas lease on two hundred t2oo)
acres Of land then owned by him,
(of which the one hundred (Icol
acres leased to compliments by
Warren and James Wood is part)
10 William Johnston; that on No.
vember the I4th, 1889, the said
William Johnson assigned to c. c.
Dickson. d c. Gruntz aud Julius
Mccormick thirteen-eighteenths
I3-I8) OF his holdings in certain
block of leases, (Which included the
lease Of Lyman Wood to him) and
that on March the 10Th. 1897,
Johnston, Mccormick, Gruntz and
Dickson's executors assigned said
leases to one John Stealey, who on
the same day assigned a one.third
'I3) interest in the same to one L.
+. Smith, and that on March Goth,
1897, Stealey and Smith assigned TO
George E. Foster an interest i'll the
said leases, which also included GER
tain leases made by Eliza and B. Z.
Hawkins and James Eddy to the
said Johnston in the year 1889 the
lands covered by the same being a
part of the 1877 acres claimed by
the complainants under the leases
executed to L. B. Hill, before men,
toned. Complainants also averred
that the defen 1ants had 10 rights
under any of the leases so made to
William Johnston in 1889, because
the same were, each and all of them
void, and that therefore all such
rights as had heretofore existed
under them had long before become
forfeited; that Johnston and those
claiming under him had made de-
fault in the stipulation contained
therein, to complete we'll within
one year from the date of said leases
respectively, in Ellsworth, Meade,
Lincoln or Union districts, unavoid-
able accidents excepted; that neither
Johnston nor any one claiming I'M
der him had ever drilled well
upon any OF the lands covered
by the complainants' leases, and
that no development in fact, had
been made, under any Of the leases
so given to Johnston; that certain
parties claiming under other and
subsequent leases from the owners
of the land, had drilled two wells
within Ellsworth district, but find
ing no oil they had dismantled their
rig and had abandoned all of the
territory so tested and leased to
Johnston; that neither Johnston nor
any one else ever paid TO Lyman
Wood the sum of ten cents (rocts
per acre per annum on account OF
the payment provided for in the
leases made by him 10 Johnston;
nor was any sum paid to any OF the
leasors Of the other leases. nor was
any such amount ever rendered ui!-
til after oil was produced on the
Wood land by co nplainants, when
the defendant Johnston rendered to
Warren Wood, James Wood and
other lessons of Johnston. certain
sums of money alleged to represent
the payments provided for in the
leases to him, which tender COM
plainants allege was an admission on
the part of Johnston Of his failure to
comply with his contract requiring
the drilling of a well within one
year from the date of his leases; that
Warren Wood, James Wood and the
other lesse-s to Johnston, being well
aware of his failure to drill well as