Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-01-10
gpecial to the Register.
nrcn,rrp c1rIIIE lama


Of any state in regard to the oil bus
dness was that which the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania rendered few
DAYS ago. 1t was in the case OF Cog
Ian vs.. The Forest Oil Co. and set
tied a question which has been IN
doubt for long time. Colgan, the
nlaintiff. owned farm OF 60 acres IN
midtown district, on which the FOREST
Oil Company held a lease drawn IN
the usual way. Five wells had peen
drilled under the lease on the eastern
part of the tract. The company also
owned producing wells OF moderate
capacity on all OF the adjoining farms
On the north, west and south, located
at distances varying from 70 to 20 rect
from Colgans line. Colgan insisted
that the western half Of his farm
should be developed by the drilling
OF other wells upon it, and asserted
that he could get others to drill the
wells If the defendant company would
release that portion of the farm to
him. The company declined to drill
the additional wells on the grounds
that they were under no obligations
to do so, because they did not De-
Iieve paying wells could be obtained
on that part of the farm, and declined
also to release it to him for the rea-
son that they considered they had
complied with the requirements OF the
lease and thereby kept it in force as
To the whole tract. Colgan then filed
a bill in the Common Pleas Court OF
Allegheny county to compel the de-
PENDANT company to drill on the west
ern part of the farm or forfeit the
lease to him, and also to compel the
company to account for oil which he
alleges had been taken from the
western part of his farm through the
wells on adjoining farms, The court,
after fully hearing the evidence, made
the decree prayed for in his bill, but
the Supreme Court reversed it and
Orders the Bill Dismissed.
The opinion was written by Justice
Mitchell, in it he says:
"This is a bill in equity by lessor
against lessee for specific covenants,
or in the alternate for forfeiture OF
lease and also for an account. AS the
covenants are merely implied and their
extent depends altogether ON oral evil
dence of opinions, the case for relief is
wholly wanting in that precision and
certainty of contractual duty which is
necessary to sustain the ordinary chan
Gerry decree for specific performance.
There is NO relation of special trust or
confidence between lessor and lessee in
gas or oil lease any more than in any
other. Like all other contracting par
ties, they deal at arms length, each for
his own interest. So long as the ques-
ton is one of business Judgment and
management, the lessee is not bound
to work unproftably to himself for the
profit of the lessor. and the parties
must be left, as in other cases, to their
own ways. 1t is only when a mani
testify fraudulent use of the opportu-
mites and control is shown. that the
courts are authorized to interfere.
CAS- already said, defendants con-
tract obligation was to sink one well.
1t has sunk FIVE One Of these, known
as Colgan No. S, it was desirable, IN
defendants Judgment, to locate near
the line of another lessor. Caldwell.
Defendant accordingly consulted both
plaintiff and Caldwell, who both agreed
to the location chosen. with notice
from. defendant to plaintiff, that if it
proved a paying we'll, plaintiff would,
in justice to Caldwell, put down an
other, on Caldwell's side of the line
as an Offset This was done. The
well on plaintiffs side Of the line
proved fair producer, though it de-
clined after a few weeks, and the 9TH
er well was sunk on CaldwelPs side
and proved about an equal producer.
This second well, known as Caldwell
No. 4, is the chief subject of plaintiffs
complaint and request for an account.
ait is Quite Apparent,
as the learned Judge reports, that each
of these wells draws its supply partly
from the others territory, but this was
foreseen and an express agreement
made as to the location of the first well,
and the NECESSITY for the second as
an Offset. The plaintiffs bill, there
fore, on this branch, is concluSively
met by his own agreement beforehand
to the conduct he now complains Of
In cases of this kind, arising from con-
fictfIg claims as to the territory from
which the supply of any particular
well is drawn, it is only when the wells
on adjoining territory are being fraud
ulently used to drain the complain
ants land that courts have any occa-
sion to interfere. The practical test
Is to be found in the question of the
outside wells, as for example the Cald-
we'll draining the Colgan wells to such
an extent that if the former were on
Grated by third party the defendant