Sistersville oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1896-1901, 1898-11-09

ana Gas company vi WSoI II
ct al, Appellees. I ginia at Par
kersburg.
Argued May 10, 1898. Decided
November I, 1898.
Before Simontop, Circuit Judge,
and Morris and Brawley, District
Judges.
A. Leo We'll, of We'll & Throp,
Caldwell & Caldwell, and B. M.
Amber on the Briefs tor Appel,
lants; w. P. Hubbard, Thomas P.
Jacobs, David Sterrett on the Briet)
for the Appellees.
Simonton, Circuit Judge.
This case comes up on appeal
from the Circuit Court of the Unit
ed States for the District of West
Virginia.
The pleadings are voluminous.
They consist of an original, an
amended and a supplemental bill
by The Elk Fork Oil and Gas COM
pany ct al, the appellees, answers
of appellants, J. M. Gufey, E. H.
Jennings ct al, answers thereto,
original and amended bill by George
E. Foster, treated as cross.bill,
and answers thereto. The conclu-
sion reached does not require any
further discussion of the pleadings.
The object of the writ was by
injunction to protect the complain
ants in the possession of certain oil
wells which they had drilled and
were operating under recent leases
from the land owners. and to re-
strain the defendants from assert
ing rights which the defendants
claimed under prior leases from the
land owners to William Johnston,
which the complainants charged
had been abandoned and were of no
validity, for the reasons that from
1880 to the institution of the suit
in March, 1887, neither Johnston
nor his assigpees had ever entered
upon or made any Search for oil or
gas or any of the tracts in posses
sion of the co1nplainants.
One William Johnston in the
year 1855, procured from a large
Plumber Of farmers, about one hun
dred and seventy-fve leases Of land
lying in four districts IN TyIer
county, West Virginia, covering
about 5000 acres. The districts
are named Ellsworth. Line III,
Union and Meade. Each contract
or lease was several, covering sepa-
rate tracts of land-the parties
stipuiating and contracting each for
himself. They were all in the
same form, containing the same
provisions, covenants and stipula-
tons. Each of them as will be
seen, provided for the digging
within a year of one we'll in the
district of Ellsworth, Lincoln,
Union or Meade. Within the.year,
Johnston dug a we'll within one of
these districts to a great depth, some
1000 feet. 1t proved to be a dry
we'll. 1t produced neither oil nor
gas. After that effort, no well
whatever was dug within either or
any of these four districts, under
any of these contracts with John
ston. Wells were dug within
these districts under new contracts
by Johnston or his assignees.
Wells were dug in this county, out
side of these districts, by Johnston.
The appellees have acquired under
recent leases, the right of taking oil
and gas from the lands mentioned
in the old Johnston leases. The
issues in the case grew out of the
conflicting claims of appellees. who
hold under recent leases, and appel
lants, who hold under Johnson.
The question in the case is, are
these johnston leases OF 1889, valid
and subsisting, or have he and
those under him lost all right there
under.
The court below held that
the leases were no longer
valid and subsisting, and that
neither johnson, nor those claim
ing under him had any right there.
under. In its decree it put its con-
clusion upon the ground of aban-
donment on the part of Johnston.
An appeal was taken and allowed,
and the questions are here on as
signments of error.
The contract to be construed
was entered into by the lessor in
consideration of the covenants and
agreements hereinafter mentioned,