Sistersville daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1902-1905, 1902-12-18
Oil Lease Construed by
an Indiana Court.

-
decision has been rendered, which
Is referred to as follows In an Indi-
annapolis dispatch: Many land
owners, 1t Is said, have sought to
cancel leases for failure to develop
gas in order that they nay be free
to enjoy larger profits In any oil
Under their land. The court at
Ifirmed the Blackford circuit court,
which ruled against canceltng a
contract because R. R. and John A..
Gadbury and the, Ohio and Indiana
Consolidated Natural and Illumi-
mating Gas company, by which the
latter was to have the right to drill
for gas and oil ON the Garbury
land, the company to pay the land
owners $1oo a year tor the product
Of each gas we'll while the gas was
used off. the premises, and one.
sixth of all oil produced. The
complaint alleged that the com
panv drilled gas we'll and found a
large quantity of gas, bnt closed
the we'll and refused to transport
the gas. The laud owners con
tended that the lease was forfeited
by the failure to perform the I'm
piled covenant to operate. The
court construes the contract strict
ly and takes no stock In the i'm
piled covenant to operate. Fraud
In making the contract was not
alleged. Judge Henley wrote the
opinion.
As rule receivershlps In the
settlement of disputes concerning
oil and gas properties are not good
things to invlte-except for the
receivers, lawyers and other ad.
juncts of the judicial machinery
The only qualification In many In.
stances Is that of having the prop
erty involved eaten up by the
costs of litigation rather than to
have Its proceeds apply to either or
any of the rival interests. However,
If the judges are just, the right
party wins In the end where re.
ceivers are appointed and the loss
Is heavier to the loser than the win
ner, whether or not there Is any
thing left of the property when the
litigation Is finished. This being
the case, the throwing into receiv
erships properties In dispute may
decline In the extent of the prac-
tice, but Is not likely soon to be
discontinued. For those who may
consider the recelvership subject
In West Virginia here are few
points as to when receivers will or
or will not be appointed, as recently
given by the supreme court of that
state In an opinion covering two
appeals.
ga receiver will not be appointed
10 take possession from defendants
of land, and drill wells for oil, In a
suit involving two conflicting titles,
merely because that the defendant
is drilling the same land for oil, or
doing other injury irreparable, IN
less special circumstances and CON
ditions are shown, such as insol-
veucy or other such circumstances.
In suit involving two hostile
titles to land, q receiver will not be
appointed to take charge of 1t
merely because of the tendency of
such suit. 1t will be done only
with great caution upon special
calling for 1t and to
preserve the property from loss 1t
does not follow that because an In
junction lies In a suit between hos
tile titles to land to restrain ire
prrable damage a receiver for the
land will be appointed. A court OF
equity has no jurisdiction to settle
title ard boundry of land between
adverse claimants, when the party
has no equity against the party
claiming adversely to him. Where
irreparable mischief Is being
done and threatened to real
estate, owing to the destruction of
the substance OF the estate, such as
the extraction of oil and gas and
the title to the land Is In dispute,
the parties claiming under hostile
titles, a court of equity will enjoin
trespass and preserve the rights of
the parties pending the determine
ton in a court of law of the ques.
ton of title. This, although no "a.
ton at law has been instituted, If
1t appears by the bill that the plain.
..n :-L.l, - ~>Ak kho 1sootio. ~