The Big Sandy news. [volume] (Louisa, Ky.) 1885-1929, 1921-12-16
us. COURT RULING
in OIL SUIT

suit OF Roscoe c, Miller. ct all, against
the Union Gas & Oil Co.. tried recently
In the United States Court at Catletts-
burg II is published because II covers
many disputed points and is therefore
OF general interest throughout the oil
field)
The plaintiffs seek the cancellation
OF a lease OF an oil and gas right un-
der which defendant has entered and
at the time of the hearing had drilled
four wells producing oil in paying guam
titles. and was then drilling fifth
ven which was likely TO prove such a
producer and TO DUST the defendant
from the leased premises. thus allow
ing plaintiffs TO reap the fruits of de-
PENDANTS endeavor. The suit was
brought May ~. 1920. AT that time two
Il the four wells had been drilled and
we're then in operation producing oil
defendant began drilling the first one
February 2. 1920, and completed II
March 10. The second one was com
pleted April 81. just before the bring
ing of the suit. The plaintiffs base
their right to the relief sought both
upon what had happened before. the
Swinging of the suit and what has hap
pened since II would seem that they
are limited TO what happened before
as no pleading has been filed complain
Ing o. what happened since, will first
consider the situation as II stood when
the suit was brought, Plaintiffs con
tend that they We're entitled to the re-
lief sought on these grounds: l
First;-That the lease under which
they entered had heretofore terminal.
ed and defendant therefore had no
right to enter II was executed jan
uary Is, 1916 and was what Is called
an unless lease. By II the lessor
granted the lessee the oil and gas right
in the land for the term OF ten years
and as long as gas or oil was found In
paying quantities. II was made in the
consideration OF one dollar the receipt
of which was acknowledged and the
lessee's agreement TO give the lessons
one eighth of the oil produced, TO pay
them $4,000 annually for each gas
we'll and TO furnish them sufficient gas
to heat and light one dwelling house
at the well free of cost II contained
no express agreement on the part Of
the lessee to develop the premises II
did, however, contain provision in
TO the commencement of de-
velopment thereof, which was in these
words:
TN case no well is commenced
within 70 months from this date.
then this grant shall be null and
void unless second part shall there
after pay at the rate of ten cents
per acre for each year drilling is
delayed"
1t is the plaintiffs position that this
provision OF the lease called for pay
ment of the prescribed rental in adj
vance in order to extend the com
mencement of development and that as
defendant did not pay the rental for
the year beginning January 70, 1920.
in advance, which is conceded It's
rights under the lease terminated on
that date and II had no right there
reinises. The clause does not say In
many words that the rental was 10
payable In advance. but there is
respectable authority 10 the effect that
,uch is the true Interpretation thereof.
There is. respectable authority to the
3ontrary. The defendant claims that
the decision OF the Kentucky Court Of
Appeals in the case Of Warren OH a
Gas Co., v. Gillian 1872 KY. so7 is
against plaintiffs contention. OF course
II IL is. II is controlling. But possibly
4 is to be distinguished on the ground
that the. lease there involved was on
"or" lease and there was an express
agreement to commence development
IN the time named OF to nav the rem
tai, whereas here It IL at least open 30
say that there LIS no such agreement
But the necessities OF this case do not
require that ! take position on this
point This is 30 because according to