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

| chronic diseases permanently cured after others
have failed. Charges moderate Beware of quacks
and don't be humbugged by mail treatment" which
is intentional fraud. Ifyou wish TO get wellquicky,
| at small expense, it will pay you 10 consult DIR.
Brillin person. Hours daily, l0tO5 Sundays, to s..
| Bring morning urine for scientific analysis;
examined free. ColIuitGtion sacredly confidential
complete the same within a year
was due to unavoidable accidents "
and therefore none OF them demand
ed rental. or claimed the right to
declare forfeiture; that in tact the
we'll was drilled in accordance with
the terms of the lease to John
ston, that in all respects said terms
were complied with, and that there
was no forfeiture Of any of his
leases; that Johnston, who was the
pioneer contractor in said territory
was at great expense in taking the
large number of leases secured by
him in Tyler county during the
years 1889 and 1890, and that he
either drilled or caused to be drilled
large NUMBER of wells on various
of said leases situated in said dis
tricts Of Lincoln, Ellsworth, Union
and Meade, at a cost OF over one
hundred thousand dollars $500, :
oGo); that said wells were drilled
during the years of 1899, 1892,
1898, 1894 and 1895.
The defendants, Jennings, Cuff
fey and Glatzau, in their answer
admit the making Of the leases by
the different lessons to Hill, as
alleged by the compliments, and
claim that the same are void and
subordinate to the leases given for
the same land in 1889 to Johnston;
they deny that they or Johnston
ever abandoned any Of said leases.
and especially any portion Of the
Lyman Wood land; they assert that
they had no notice Of the lease made
by Warren and James Wood to Hill,
o. OF Hill assignments OF the same,
until March 10Th, 1897, when they
notified the complainants that they
were the lawful owners Of the Ly-
man Wood lease, and that they
were entitled to all of the oil aud
gas under that land; that the com
plainants drilled their we'll on said
land in bad faith and with full
knowledge of the exclusive right of
the defendants, or OF Johnston and
his assigns, to operate upon the
same; and that they have been the
equitable owners of the leases
claimed by them ever since August,
1892, and the legal owners of the
same since March 23rd, 1897.
Other matters are set out in the
answer of Jennings, Guffey ard
Glatzau, and also alleged in the
cross bill filed by them, of similar
import to the claims made by Eos
ter in the cross bill filed by him.
setting forth the execution of the
leases to Johnston in 1889, the work
done by him and his assigns in con-
nection with the same, the assign
ment of said leases and their subse-
quent transfer to others, and also
showing the present claimants of
the same; also asserting that said
leases have not been forfeited, and
declaring their validity at the time
of the institution of these proceed
ings. We do not deem it necessary
to repeat them in detail. The an
swer of the Elk Fork Oil and Gas
company to the cross bill filed by
Jennings, Gufey and others, reiter-
ates the averments of the amended
bill and sets up some additional
matters which will be alluded to
only as they are drawn in question
in the disposition of the matters In
controversy. The allegations and
claims found in the amended bill
filed by Foster, and in the answer
rendered by him to the amended
bill of the Elk Fork Oil & Gas COM
pany, will be likewise referred to and
disposed of.
1t is claimed by the defendants,
Jennings, Guffey, Glatzau, Foster
and others, that court of equity is
without jurisdiction to grant the re-
lief sought by the Elk Fork Oil &
Gas company, in the proceedings
instituted by it. The compliments
allege that they are in the actual
possession and occupancy of the
land covered by the leases made to
Hill, and that their title to the same
is good, but that the Johnson leases
under which the defendants claim,
I-o1tho,,Oh forfeited ord ahan-