Sistersville oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1896-1901, 1898-02-02
GOFFS OPINION.
Continued fro N 5th Page,

also so far as this point is con-
cerned, we hold that it is immaterlal
whether we regard the well as com.
pleted when the big 1pJun" sand
was drilled through, or at the time
when the drill had passed through
the Gordon" sand. 1t is quite
evident that all Of Johnson's lessons
were watching the Smith well with
interest as we'll as anxiety, and that
thew also regarded to delay occa-
stoned by the caving of the well, the
fastening of the tools, the moving
OF the rig, and the injury OF the en-
ployes to be of the character OF &C
cidents mentioned i'll the leases, as
unavoidable; and while we think
that, after making due allowance
for the time so consumed by such
unavoidable accidents" that the
we'll was completed within the time
stipulated for, still so far as these
controversies are concerned that
point is not essential for the reason
that the lessons not only assented TO
the delay, but were anxious
that the work be continued, and al
ter the we'll was completed they by
their conduct and acqulescence
clearly made it appear that, they
did not regard the time consumed
in drilling said we'll as ground tor
forfeiture. The lessons down to the
time Of the completion Of the Smith
we'll acted, as if they believed that
Johnston and his assigns had pro-
cecded to develop his territory IN
fgood faith, aud they neither made
.Icomplaint, demanded rental nor de-
Icla1ed a forfeiture.
Finding these facts to be as we
nave indicated, it follows that at the
time of the completion of the Smith
! we'll there was 10 forfeiture Of The
Johnston leases, because of failure
on his part or on the part Of his as
signs to comply with the terms OF
the same. This brings us to the
further consideration of the leases,
and ofthe duty of Johnston and those
holding under him, to the respect
i've lessons, so far as the seaCh for
oil and gas, and the development OF
the several separate tracts OF land Is
concerned.
The drilling and completion OF
the test we'll within the period pro
vided for renders it unnecessary tor
us to determine what would have
been the situation between the par
ties if the we'll in fact had not been
drilled, and if Johnston had paid to
the lessons the rental stipulated for
in case OF delay. That condition OF
affairs does not exist, the argument
relating thereto was unnecessary
and the court will not further consid-
er the provisions of leases relating to
the same. The only remaining
question is, were the Johnston
leases covering the land now
claimed by the Elk Fork Oil & Gas
company, (under the leases made to
HilD abandoned by Johnston or his
assigns, after the completion of the
Smith we'll? Is the claim of the de-
PENDANTS that, by virtue of the com
pletion OF the test we'll their title to
the leases became vested for the
granted term of ten (Io) years and as
much longer as oil or gas should be
found in paying quantities, without
obligation on their part TO operate
further, we'll founded? We think
not. We think that the parties to
the contracts when they stipulated
that the lessons were to have the
full equal one-eighth part of all the
petroleum oil obtained Or produced
on the premises leased by them and
an annual compensation for the gas
utilized, intended that much royalty
should be paid, and the necessary
search made, within a reasonable
time after the execution of the
leases, ems that the lessee was to
have the period OF ten (1o) years in
which to remove the oil and gas
from the land, with the understand
ing that if at tue expiration of that
time such products should still be
found in paying quantities, the term
should be extended until they were
removed. The oil or gas referred
to, was expected to be found On
the particular land described in
each of the several leases, and not
on some unknown and unmentioned
tract within Oh e OF the tour districts
in Tyler county referred to in each
lease. 1t is set forth in the con
tract that the grant is made for the
| .>.x,oea ~ Jrill;-n ord ororot,ro