Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-03-07
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR vIRGINIAN-
PILOT.
Notes Of Gases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
M'GREGoR v. CAMDEN.

Supreme Court of Appeals, West Va,
December 2, 1899.
OIL AND GAS WELLS ARE NOT
NUIsANCEs PER Sc, BUT MAY
BE NUISANCES IN CERTAIN
CASES.
IF IN SUCH A LOCATION AND SO
MANAGED AS TO MATERIALLY
DIMINISH THE VALUE OF a
DWELLING HOUSE, AND SER
1OUSLY INTERFERE WITH ITS
COMFORT. SUCH A WE'LL is AN
ABATABLE NUISANCE.
This was a suit for an injunction
against an oil and gas well. The lower
court refused the injunction and plain
tiff appealed.
The court says:
The main facts on which the bill is
founded arc not even denied, the only
controversy between the parties being
the question as TO whether Il gas and
oil well can be so sunk and operated as
not to be II nuisance TO IL dwelling
house and lot within 10 feet OF it. The
bare statement of the case would APP
parently make it prima facie a nuis-
ance. The noise and rumbling of
steam running machinery at all hours,
both day and night, until they become
noyance to most persons; and then the
inflammable, destructive, and danger
Gus character of both oil and gas issu-
ing from producing we'll, and dis
charged in the air or stored in quanut-
ties. are matters of common under
standing; and when situated SO near
dwelling house and grounds as to be-
come an impending and threatening
danger TO the property and inmates
thereof, so the proper enjoyment of
such property is greatly interfcred with,
II not entirely destroyed, a court of
equity is justified in abating the same
as nuisance. unless it appears that
such we'll can be operated without
danger TO such dwelling house. Nor
can this matter be determined by
waiting until the property is actually
destroyed. Such delay would be in its
nature criminal. A lawful business can
not be nuisance per sc, but from it's
surrounding places and circumstances,
or the manner in which it is conducted,
1t may become II nuisance.
In the case OF Cook V. Anderson S5
Ala. 80, 1t was held that keeping ex-
plosive substances III large quantities
In the vicinity of dwelling houses or
places of business is ordinarily regarded
neutrality-suspicious. or not being re-
pendent upon the locality, the quantity,
and surrounding circumstances" If
the Keeping of such substances, which
necessarily include oil and natural gas,
near n dwelling house or place of bust
ness, may be a nuisance, what may be
SAID OF boring into the earth, and turn
Ing them loose from their safe confine-
ment. and allowing them to spread ad
llDitum over and through n dwelling
house? Natural gas is known to be
easily ignitable, and highly explosive,
and to be very dangerous. owing
to its stealthy and rapid approach.
Naphtha gas, arising from crude
petroleum oil, is said TO be more ex-
plosive than powder. In this case we
have the natural gas from the we'll,
petroleum, and the gas therefrom In it's
storage tank. all to deal with as dam
gerous and threatening to plaintiffs
property. AS the drilling has ceased,
the noise attending it has, likewise, ex-
cept that arising from the pumping
opera ton, about which nothing is alleg-
ed or proven.
The bills, on demurrer, make out a
strong case Of nuisance against defen-
dants. and therefore the demurrer
should have been overruled. They do
not allege. however. that this we'll can
not be operated without danger or loss
to plaintiffs property, although there
are allegations from which this might
be implied. Nor is this matter Of
common knowledge, as there is little,
If any, human experience to be had in
this direction, as but few oil wells have
ever been located in so close proximity
to a valuable home property. The evil
dence Of the most expert and competent
witnesses could alone shed light on this
subject. The court cannot say without
such evidence that the we'll could be
operated without such danger and loss.
The drilling of oil and gas wells is not
only legitimate business, but public
policy upholds 1t, as being for the gem
eral welfare. Yet public policy itself
is qualified by the constitutional pro-
vision that private property shall not
be taken or damaged for public use
without just compensation. So public
policy will not justify the maintenance
of an oil we'll that is nuisance to
private property. Reversed