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

cause tor oil and gas purposes, un-
der and by virtue of certain leases
thereon made by the owners of said
land Such suit was, by due pro-
Iceedings had, removed into this
court. The complainants, on April
the I'd, 1897, fled in this court an
amended bill against the same de,
PENDANTS, and also against George
E. Foster and others. On the I4th
day of April, 1897, the complain.
ants filed an amended and supple
mental bill. On the 9th day of
April, 1897, George F. Foster (who
was named as a defendant il said
amended bill, but who was not
served with process until April s,
1897, fled his bill against the Elk
Fork Oil & Gas company, and 9th
ers, and obtained from This court a
restraining order against the com,
plainants in said original and
amended bill. 1t appears from the
record that Foster, when he filed
his bill, was aware of the fact that
the questions raised by the same
concerning what is known as the
Hawkins lease Of September 4,
1850, had bSen presented to the
court by the amended bill filed on
the Cd day of April, 1897. When
the amended aud supplemental bill
was fi.d on April the I4th, 1897,
the Elk Fork Oil & Gas company
moved for an injunction against
Foster as prayed for in said bill, aud
also moved to dissolve the restrain
ing order which had been awarded
to Foster on the 9th day of April,
1897.
The court, after hearing counsel
on said MOTORS, and duly consider
ing the questions raised by the
pleadings, ordered that the two suits
should be heard together, and also
that the bill fled by Foster should
be treated as a cross hill iii the suit
brought by the original complain
ants. The court also at the same
time appointed Charles W. Brock
lIunie receiver, with instructions 10
drill wells on the fifty (5o) acres Of
land in controversy between Foster
and the Elk Fork Oil & Gas CON-
pany, at such places and in such
manner as he might deem best and
proper, provided that the fluid re-
quired for that purpose should be
advanced by the parties in interest,
with the under standing that the
same should be returned from the
production of the territory, should
the same be sufficient, otherwise the
party making such advances to lose
the same. All parties to the con-
troversy were enjoined from inter
fering with the receiver in the eX-
ercise of the rights conferred upon
him by the order Of the court.
On the 18TH day of April, 1897,
the defendents, Jennings, Gufey
and Glatzau, filed their answer, and
at the same time teLdered their
cross bill which was duly filed. On
the filing Of their answer and cross
bill, the Court appointed w. A Nc
Gosh receiver, so far as the oil and
gas rights were concerned in the
one hundred (Ioo) acres of land
claimed by the Elk Fork Oil & Gas
company, known as the Wood lease,
and also so far as the Tuttle lease
was concerned claimed by the same
parties, the purpose and duties Of
such receiver being virtually the
same as those heretofore given Re-
ceiver Brockuuier. On April the
Goth, 1896, the Elk Fork Oil & Gas
company filed their answer to said
cross bill, and moved the court
to discharge the receiver; the
defendant, Foster, at the same time
demurring to compliments bill.
On the 10th day of May, 1897, Fos-
ter filed an amended bill against
the originaI complainants, and GER
tain others, lessons of part OF the
lands in controversy, and asked for
and obtained from the court an or
der extending the powers of Re-
ceiver Brockunier over the land
owned by Joshua Hawkins, T. G.
Hawkins Eli Wetzel, David Sum
mers and James Eddy. On the 10Th
day of June, 1897, the defendant,
Foster, filed his answer to the COM
plainants' bill.
The complainants in their
amended bill alleged that one L. B.
Hill. during the months of Decem
her 1905, and January, 1907, leased