Sistersville daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1902-1905, 1903-04-03
Important Oil Suit.

The Supreme court has rendered
decision In the case of Stewart VS.
Tenant. The facts In the case are
substantially these. James Stewart
being the owner of tract OF 176
acres of land In this county, died In
the year 1889. interstate and leaving
surviving him a widow and twelve
children. Afterwards, and prior to
July I, 1890, Jacob Tenant and
Cassie A. Tenant purchased the
undivided interest of six of said
children. They then brought a
partition suit. Alter this suit was
brought the Tenants purchased OF
the widow her dover and the In
terests of four of the other children
making them owners of ten tweliths
of the land. The other two interests
were owned by the plaintiffs In this
suit. Louis a d Emma Stewart.
The court heard evidence to the
effect that 1t would be to the interest
of these two minor children to have
their interests sold In the land
which was done on the 9Th day OF
December 1891 and Tenant bought
the interests for two hundred
dollars. The Tenants took pos.
session of the lane and leased 1t to
the South Penn Oil Co., for oil.
which company drilled In IL wells
on the land. Ga the 2eth of June
the plaintiff who had been under
age, brought a suit against the
Tenants, South Penn Oil Co., and
Eureka Pipe Line Co, to set aside
the sale OF their interests, claiming
the sale was null and void. The
court decides as follows:
I. An jntant, under the statues
allowing to him to show cause
against decree may do so by or
iginal bill, although the cause al
legged Is error Of law apparent on
the face of the decree.
?. When such bill seeks relief,
by way of cancellation of a deed
and an accounting for waste, rents,
issues and profits, consequent upon
the reversal of the decree, and
fully set forth the defects IN the
decree, and Incorporates the plead
ings, DEGREES and orders as exhibits,
the suit Is not collateral, but direct
" attacks the erroneous decree,
and the record of the cause In
which 1t was pronounced may be
introduced upon the hearing as
evidence.
Z Where the allegation of bill
are sufficient to support decree,
and there Is prayer for general re.
lief, and such decree Is pronounced
1t will stand, although not speci6-
cally prayed for In the bill.
Where an infant proceeds
promptly upon attaining his maj or
ity, to show cause against decree,
the defence of laches cannot be
made.
Before there can be sale Of
land In a PARTITION suit, 1t must be
ascertained and determined that
partition thereof cannot con.
veniently be made, and the usual
and preferable mode of establishing
such fact Is by report of commits
sioners, so stating, and setting
forth the facts from which 1t
appears.
E Wherein partition suit. there
Is an allotment of part of the land
and sale of the residue, the allotted
part and the proceeds of the part
sold much each be devided among
all the co-tenants of the entire
subject, in the absence of consent
decree, when adults only are inter
ested, and 1t Is erroI to sell the un-
divided interests of infants In such
suit, when there Is no proceeding
therein by their guardian for such
sale in the manner prescribed there
for by law.
7 A party to suit. moving the
sale therein, of an infants real es-
tate, and purchasing the same un-
der decree therein made, Is not
protected by section s of chapter