Sistersville oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1896-1901, 1898-02-02
JUDGB CORES OPINION.
Continued from 1st Page

IuSal OF the IGSSOIS 10 dCCSpt lAC
tender of ten cents 10 cts.) per
acre before mentioned. was also :
declaration, and that Johnston and
those claiming under him had years
before recognized such forfeiture
by refusing to proceed with the
drilling of the wells unless the
owners Of the different tracts
of lands would grant new leases on
the same, which in a number of in
stances has been been done for the
purpose of securing development.
That the said Johnson in the fall OF
1880. obtained many leases in Ty-
Ter county, aggregating thousands
of acres, which were all of the same
character as the one made by
Lyman Wood, and that all OF them
have been abandoned and forfeited
or acc, unit of the facts before men
toned; that the land leased to John
ston by Lyman Wood is now owned
by Warren and James Wood, his
sons, and that when they leased the
same to Hill, they regarded the
lease made by their father to John
ston to be null and void, but still in
order to protect themselvesfrom any
liability or expense Of litigation, in
case the Johnson lease should there
after be asserted against them, they
caused the words, this lease is
taken subject to the William John
ston lease, September, 1885," to be
inser ed in the lease made by them
to Hill.
In their supplemental bill the
compliments alleged that the lease
made in September, 1850, by Eliza
Hawkins and Benjamin Hawkins to
William johnson, had become for
feited and void; that George +. Eos
ter claimed the same. and asserting
the right to drill for oil upon the
one hundred (Ioo) acres of land
leased by said parties to Hill, had
undertaken to occupy the ground
covered by that lease and to Dust
the complainants thereirom; that he
had, on April the 9Th, 1897, caused
a notice to be served upon the COM
pIainants requiring them to desist
from their operations on that tract
of land; that the complainants had
taken possession under the Hawkins
lease to Hill, had located we'll
thereon and were about to
drill the same, and that said land
was separated from the Wood
tract of land, on which they had a
producing well, only by tract Of
nine 20 acres, said producing well
being only six hundred 5000 feet
from the we'll located on the Baw-
klns land.
In the cross bill fled by Foster,
the execution of the lease by Eliza
and Benjamin Hawkins to William
Johnston on September 4th, 1889,
IS alleged, and also that Johnston
at the same time took large num-
Der Of similar leases in the same ter
ritory, which was then undevelop-
ed for oil or gas, and that conse-
quently the lessons in "a d leases
were most eager to have a est we'll
in that section, and that the pro
curing of such we'll was one of
the considerations moving the les.
sors to make such leases. Also that
Johnston procured to be drilled, in
accordance with the terms of the
Hawkins lease, an oil we'll upon
one of the tracts leased to him; that
the drilling of said we'll was attend
ed with much difficulty, because of
it's great distance from the point Of
supply Of material, and also be-
cause the character Of the territory
and the strata to be drilled through
had been, therefore, unknown; that
the we'll was begun in April, 1890,
and the work prosecuted continu-
ouly until the drill had reached
depth of twelve hundred (12oo) feet,
when the tools became fastened;
that the drillers tried, but failed to
extricate them, and that the work
was finally abandoned, and the rig
moved about twenty (2o) feet
where another we'll was started,
which was prosecuted continuously
to completion; that such well was
drilled to the big Ipjun" sand,
which was the usual oil bearing
sand in the Tyler county territory,
and that as no oil was found the
drill was run still deeper through
the "Gorden" sand, in all to the
depth OF twenty-seven hundred IT,