The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1901-06-14
NOTED OIL CASES DECIDED.
Indgs Mason Handed Down . NUM-
ber b Important Decisions

Judge John w. Mason in circuit
court Saturday morning handed down
important decisions involving title to
a considerable tract Of valuable oil
territory on New Creek, this county.
The cases decided were styled Cordelia
Natter versus L. n Brown, w. T.
Flanagan versus B. 81. Brown and Har-
riet Strother versus Is. II. Brown.
The plaintiffs sued for reform ltion
and cancellation Of clauses in deeds
for coal property, that conveyed oil
and gas rights claiming that these
clauses had been Inserted in the deeds
without their knowledge or consent,
and, therefore, they charged Brown
with fraudulently obtaining title to
the oil aud gas. These deeds were ex-
ecuted in 1890 but no action was in
stituted until ten years later, and not
until after the land was found to b.
valuable oil territory.
In deciding the cases Judge Mason
said the deeds were regular upon their
face and that, though the plaintiffs
testified that the interlineations we're
made after the deeds were executed,
vet in The absence ofcreditable cOrroo-
oratiye evidence, 1t would be dan
perous precedent to set aside the deeds
and declare them null and void as to
the oil and gas, upon the evidence
alone Of the plaintiffs. An order was
accordingly entered dIsmissing the
bills.
The case OF Henna versus the South
Penn on Company was also decided by
Judge Mason, in which the court held
that, although the state supreme
court appeared to say in a decision
that to find duster was to end the
lease. vet he construed the meaning Of
that court to be that the finding of a
buster or unproductive well resulted
in giving the operating company no
vested title, but did not change the
company's right to search for oil,
which right is the true meaning Of an
oil lease until oil is found in paying
quantities. But at the same time
either party to the contract had the
right, by law, to terminate the lease
after the first well had been drilled,
provided it was a duster.
In the case under consideration,
however, ID. T. Martin, who was the
owner Of the land upon which the
dusuer was drilled by the South Penn,
did not notify the latter of his inten-
tion TO terminate the lease, but to the
contrary, when he gave a second lease
to Henna, he made it subject to the
South Penn lease, and, thereby, pre-
served the South PENIS claim and
right and voluntarily perpetuated the
first lease instead Of terminating and
destroying it. The case was, accord
ingly, decided against Henna, the
plaintiff. The territory in contro-
versy has come to be very valuable and
In still another case, that of F. E.
Robinson versus South Penn Oil Com
pany, the Judge decided that an owner
Of well that had been abandoned by
the operating company could not pro,
hibit the latter from pulling the cas-
ing and plugging the hole. He de
claged the company had the right to
take out the casing, which is its own
and that the statutes of the
state required the company to plug
the hole of the well whenever aban-
1onrd, aud, therefore. court could
lot vnjviu peIson Vi cvmpal,y from
taking possession of its own property,
nor could court prohibit one from
with statute. He, ac-
dissolved the Injunction in
the case.
These cases have attracted much
interest, because Of the legal phases,
which have not as yet been passed
upon by the state supreme court, and
because Of their vital concern to many
in oil production and specula-
tion not only in this county, but all
over the state where oil is produced.
They will all be appealed TO the state
court.