West Virginia daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1894-1902, 1898-11-04

.
The clear purpose of the lessor
was to have his lands operated for
Gil and gas, and the condstion was
inserted for his benefit. Whilst the
obligation on part of the les
see 10 operate is not ex-
pressed In so many words,
1t arises by necessary implication.
The lease was for the expressed
purpose of drilling and boring for
oil or gas, the lessor, in a certain
event, to receive share of the pro
duction as royalty or rent, and, in
another event, to be paid $500 per
annum for each gas we'll, the pro
duct of which was conducted from
the land for consumption. If O
farm is leased for farming purposes,
the lessee to deliver to the lessor a
share of the crops in the nature of
rent, 1t would be absurd to say, be-
cause there was no expressed en-
gagement to farm, that the lessee
was under no obligation to cult
vate the land; an engagement to
farm In proper manner, and to a
reasonable extent, is necessarily
implied. The clear purpose of the
parties to this lease was to have the
lands developed, and the half.year-
ly payments, and the other sums
stipulated, were intended only to
spur the operator, but to compen-
safe Ray for the operators delay or
default"
The contract provides that one
we'll shall be dug within a specified
time. This phrase, "one we'll" is
capable Of one Of two constructions.
1t may be used in the sense Of but
one we'll" If it be used in this
sense, as the we'll has been dug and
proved to be dry, the performance
OF the covenants in the contract on
the part Of the lessee has become
impossible. He can dig no more
wells, and can never supply the
petroleum or the oil. Steelsmith
VS.. Gartlan, 20 So. Z. Rep, (West
Va) 978. Such lease must be
construed as whole, and if there is
no provision therein contained, re.
quiring the boring of another we'll
after the first unsuccessful attempt
is completed and abandoned, the
lease becomes invalid ard Of no
binding force in any of its provi.
sion"
The phrase, however, may he
construed to use one we'll in the
sense of pioneer in series. If ii
be used in this sense, the lessee
having dug the one we'll and then
having ceased to dig any other we'll
within the four districts, would
seem to have abandoned all effort
toward the performance Of the Gov
enants which were the cons!dera-
ton Of the contract, and so may be
hel! - have abandoned the COZ
tract itself
The leases, as has been said, in
the four districts all had the same
provisions. The lessee bored one
we'll. Improved a failure in every
other respect except that it saved
the penalty, having been dug with
iii one year. The we'll itself was
dry. This is the only work done
by the lessee on any Of the land
covered by these leases. No furth
er effort was made. He failed TO
establish his rights. His mac ton
may we'll be construed an abandon.
ment of these rights under lease.
"A vested title cannot ord ,ro,;11, J..
lost by abandonment in less time
than that fixed by the statute of
limitations, unless there is satisfac-
tory proof of an intention to aban.
don. A lease Of right to mine for
oil, &c, stands on different ground.
The title is inchoate and for pur-
poses Of exploration only until
is found. If it is not found, no es-
tate vests in the lessee and his title,
whatever it is, ends when the sue.
cesstul search IS abandoned. If oil
is found, the right to produce
becomes vested right, and the
lessee will be protected in exercis-
ing it in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the contract"
Crawford VS.. Ritcher, Fl So. E.
Rep, West Va 22o. In this case
the lease was for twenty years for
the sole and only purpose of drill
ing and operating for petroleum
oil and gas. The same doctrine is
reatfirmed by the same court very
recently in Steelsmith VS.. Gartlan,