Sistersville daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1902-1905, 1902-11-28
An Important Ruling in U. S. Court
AN Interesting Oil Case.

AN Interesting Oil Case.
A decision of great Importance
to mining partners was made yes
terday afternoon by Judge John J.
Jackson, of the United States Cir.
cult Court an equit suit pending
| In said court between J. Il. Ellis
worth and Bartlett and Stancl'ff
aud others.
One Samuel Boy1~s and the we'll
known pronucing firm of Bartlett
and Stanclff were joint owne's of a
lease made by George Leonard, of
Ravenswood, on tract Of AZ acres
of land In Pleasarts county. These
partners also owned some other oil
| leases In the vicinity of the
Leonard lease.
Bartlett and Stancliff In January,
1000, brought suit against Samuel
Boyles In the circuit court of Pleas
ants county to wind up the mining
partnership existing between Bart
lett and Stancliff and Boyles, and to
sell the leaseholds, including the
forty two acre Leonard lease.
In March 1900, J H. Ellsworth
brought suit In the Upited States
Circuit against Bartlett and Stan
cliff and Samuel Boyles, in which
suit Ellsworth claimed that he had
obtained In the same month a lease
for a forty two acre tract from Geo
Leonard, and asked the court to
cancel the original lease made by
Leonard to Boyles
Bartlett and St nclff filed a cross
bill, claiming that the Ellsworth
lease had been procured by the
fraudulent acts of Samuel hoyles,
who Bartlett and Stancliff alleged
had by some trick, induced Georg>
Leonard to make a lease TO Ellis
worth. and tha Boyles had taken
from Ellsworth an assignment OF
one half interest In the new lease
The Ellsworth suit and the cross
bill suit of Bartlett and Stancl'tf
were matured and decided by
Judge Jackson A decree was Ell
tered, canceling the Ellsworth suit
lease. The court referred the case
to John F. Laird to settle the &C,
count of the receivers who had been
appointed at the request OF Ellis
worth Three wells had been
drilled on the lease by the receiver.
Bartlett and Stancliff took the
position before the commissioner
that because Boyles had been
partner with Bartlett and Stancliff
and had then tried to defraud them
out of their lease and had put the
expense of the receivership upon
the property. that Samuel Boyle>
should be made pay the costs of The
suit and the costs of the receiver
ship.
The commissioner reported that
Bovles had loaned to the receivers
S 600 and that the recetvership
charges and the expense amount d
to $125o and that these charges
should be paid by Samuel Bovles
The court confirmed the report
of Master Commissioner Laird, ard
decreed that Boyles should be
charged with $125o, the receiver
ship expense, and the costs and ex
penses of the suit which aggregate
$500, making a total OF about
s., 900.
1t would appear from this de-
cision that mining partners such
as are co.owners of oil leases, will
be held account BILE tor the expen-
ses and costs that ma, be Incurred
by an other partner, In case the
partner who causes these costs to
be incurred shall have been found
to have attempted to perpetrate a
!, fraud.
Bartlett and Stancliff were repre-
scented BY Attorneys v. B Archer,
of this city, J. Hansford Mccoy, of
Sistersville, and Judge T. P. Jacobs
of New Martin svllle. -Parkersburg
News.