Sistersville daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1902-1905, 1902-11-25
OIL CASE
SDECIDED
Opinion Handed Down by Su'
preme Court,
Fine Points of Practice and Law as t.
Conflicting Claims Are Decided.

An appeal f.om a decree OF the
circuit court of Richie county, In
volvlng some fine points of prac'
itice and law as to conflicting claims
to the right to drill oil wells. was
decided by the supreme court o!
appeals at Charleston yesterday
From the record it appears that
there were two conflicting claim
ants to tract Of land In Richie
county. A lease on the same was
obtained from one claimant by r.
II. Freer and others, and from an.
other claimant another lease was
obtained by Thos. E. Davis and
others. Davis and his co-lessees
took possession of the land and de-
veloped the same for oil, finding
oil In paying quantities. Thereupon
Freer and others filed their bill In
equity In the circuit court oi
Ritchie county and asked for an In
junction and a cancellation of the
Davis lease. An interlocutory de-
cree was entered by the circuit
court of Richie county and re-
ceiver was appointed, who was di
rected TO take possession OF the
property and protect the line by
drilling wells thereon. From this
decree Davis and his associates
took an appeal. The appeal Is
hereafter designated as first appea'.
After the appeal had been taken by
Davis from the decree appointing a
receiver. the parties proceeded to
mature the case for final hearing,
and on final hearing Judge Willis
decided the case for Davis, dis
solved the Injunction and dismissed
Freer and others bill. From this
decree F1eer and others took an
appeal, and the decision hereinafter
on this last Is mentioned as the
second appeal. The Court of Ap-
peals, 1t seems, has held In the case
that while it was error to appoint q
receiver In the first appeal, yet In
the second appeal they have held
that an Injunction Is the proper
remedy in case of conflicting titles,
like the one under consideration,
where one claiment was In posses.
sion extracting the oil and dispos-
ing of the same. The syllabus OF
the two cases Is here given under
the heading First Appeal" and
"Second Appeal"
In the Supreme Court Davis and
others were representeded by ThoS
E. Davis, of Harrisville, and Judge
Edwin Maxwell. of Clarksburg.
The Freer interests were represent
ed by Sherman Robinson and ].
Willis Fidler of Harrisville, and V.
B. Archer and VIM. Beard of Par.
kersburg. Pending the litigation
certain interests In these leases have
been acquired by A. T. Kreps OF
this city,A NJ. Spur of New York,
and the Penn Oh Gas & Mining Co
The court holds that Davis cannot
operate for oil, and that Freer and
others must bring their suit In
ejectment In orderto try the title,
so that Kreps, Freer and others
win the case so far as the right to
operate the territory by Davis and
his associates Is concerned, but
Freer and others will / !. compelled
to file their suit In ejectment and
try the title.
The following Is the syllabus of
the two appeals:
FIst appeal:
I. A receiver will not be ap.
poin'ed to take possession from de.
PENDANTS of land. and drill wells for
oil. 10 a suit involving two conflict,
Ing titles, merely because that the
defendant Is drilling the same land
for il,or doing other injury irrepsr.
able, unless special circumstances
and conditions are shown, such as
insolvency or other such circum.
stances.
2. In a suit involving two hostile
titles to land, a receiver will not be
annoinfed fo take chaYcn of N