Sistersville daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1902-1905, 1903-04-04
REMNANT CASE

laud on the waters of Indian Creek,
died, leaving twelve children and q
widow. Jacob Tenant and Cassie
Tenant bought ten of the undi'
vlded interests In the. land, and ia
cob Tenant bought the dover In
terest. That left two interests
owned by Louis Stewart and EN-
ma Stewart, who were both minors.
The Tenants brought suit for
partition. A decree of partition
was entered and commissioners
appointed. The decree was never
executed, and about year after 1t
was entered the court ordered 1t set
aside, and ordered the undivided
2.12 interests of the two minors to
be sold.
At the sale Jacob Tenant
bought the two interests OF the
minors. Tenant then leased the
land to the South Penn on com
pany, and before the two suits were
brought by Louis Stewart and his
sister they had extracted a
large quantity OF oil from
the land, variously estimated
at from 100000 worth to
some lower sum Within two
months after he became of age,
| Louis Stewart brought the suit, de-
cided Saturday. In which he at
tackled the validity Of the decree OF
sale and confirmation of sale, There
never was any finding made by the
court that the land was not suscep-
tible ofpartition. The statute only
authorizes sales of infants lands to
be made upon the application OF
their guardian, either by a summary
proceeding, in wnich the guardian
filed petition, or In a regular suit
In equity In which he filed bill,
The guardian of these minors was
not party to the suit In which the
order of sale was made These
were the grounds upon which the
sale and decree were assailed. The
chief, indeed the only, defense was
made by the South Penn Oh COM
pany, and 1t was based entirely up
on the three years statute OF ltmita-
lions which was enacted for the
benefit of mining, oil and gas leases
In reply for Stewart, we attacked
the constitutionalty of the statute
and claimed that 1t had been re-
pealed. Judge Willis decided that
the statute had been repealed by
the revision of the statute of limita'
lions enacted In 1882 8. Last Sat
urday the Supreme court OF Appeals
pronounced the statue unconstitu-
tional, because Its title did not state
the object of the statute, and It also
adiudged that the statute had been
repealed as decided by Judge Willis.
The decision In Jones against
| Williamson was followed, and the
Court held that Tenant had com
mitted waste; that the decree Of
sale and confirmation of sale were
erroneous and voidable; that the
Souh Penn OIL Company should
account for one-twelfth of the oil to
Stewart, less one.twelfth Of the
royalty. On all the main points,
as you see by this statement, the
decision was In favor Of Stewards.
The case was, however, remanded.
because couple Of minor errors
had been committed In the
lower court. One was that
the bill failed to tender the
amount of money which had been
paid to the guardian by the pur'
chaser, but which had never been
paid to the minor. The other was
that the decree failed to make pro
vision tor the payment OF the dow
er interest to the owner of the
dover. These are errors that can
be easily corrected, and the Court
remauded the case with leave to
the plaintiff to amend his bill, and
ordered 1t to be proceeded with
upon the principles of the decision.
You can see the infuite Importance
of this decision to tie South Penn
Oh Company. 1t annihilates a
statute on which that company has
made a defence against many
actions pending In the state, and
already decided, as I have been
informed. There are several other
cases now pending In Tyler County
Circuit Court where the Company
has interposed this same defense
4