Brown v. Spilman

Decision Date14 January 1895
Docket NumberNo. 92,92
Citation155 U.S. 665,39 L.Ed. 304,15 S.Ct. 245
PartiesBROWN v. SPILMAN et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

John F. Taylor, July 29, 1889, leased a tract of land containing 40 acres, in Grant township, Pleasants county, W. Va., to Joseph S. Brown, for the purpose of boring and mining for oil and gas, by a deed of that date, which was, on August 3, 1889, duly recorded in the clerk's office of Pleasants county. Brown took possession under this lease, and proceeded to exercise possession therein conferred.

On the 30th day of June, 1890, John F. Taylor and his wife, by their deed of that date, sold and conveyed the same tract of land to B. D. Spilman and W. N. Chancellor, subject to the lease to Brown, which lease is described in the deed as being a lease of thirty acres of said tract of land for oil and gas purposes.

On the 9th day of July, 1890, Spilman and Chancellor filed in the circuit court of the United States for the district of West Virginia a bill of complaint against Joseph S. Brown, wherein they set up their ownership of the said tract of land, containing 40 acres, conveyed to them by Taylor and wife, and complain that Brown, without right, was asserting a claim and title to the oil and gas in certain 10 acres of said land, and was threatening to interfere with the right and possession of the plaintiffs in drilling oil wells and operating on said 10 acres of land; and they charge that the claim of Brown created a cloud upon their title to the 10 acres, and ask for an injunction and equitable relief. As exhibits, copies of the lease to Brown and of the deed to Spilman and Chancellor were annexed to the bill.

Brown, on July 18, 1890, filed an answer to the bill, asserting his right to possession of the entire tract of 40 acres for oil and gas purposes, and denying that the complainants had, under their deed from Taylor, any right to bore for oil on the said 10 acres, or to exclude him therefrom. On the same day he filed a cross bill against Spilman and Chancellor, in which, after narrating the contents of the lease and of the deed, as he claimed them to be, he asked that Spilman and Chancellor should be enjoined from boring or mining for oil and gas on the said 10 acres, and from interfering with his rights in the same.

To this cross bill Spilman and Chancellor filed a general damurrer, and on August 25, 1890, by agreement of counsel, the case was set down for hearing upon the bill and exhibits and answer and replication to said answer to the original bill and upon the cross bill and demurrer thereto.

On February 10, 1891, the court entered a final decree and filed opinion, reported in 45 Fed. 291, sustaining the original bill, and enjoining Brown and all persons acting under him from entering into or upon said 10 acres of land, and from instituting any action or suit against the plaintiffs in respect to the said 10 acres, and from interfering with or interrupting the plaintiffs in their use of the 10 acres for any purpose. By the decree the demurrer to the cross bill was sustained, and the cross bill dismissed, with costs.

From this decree an appeal was taken to this court.

Thos. J. Stealey, for appellant.

John A. Hutchinson, for appellees.

Mr. Justice SHIRAS, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

Whatever rights Spilman and Chancellor have in the 10 acres in controversy they hold subject to the provisions of the prior lease to Brown, of which, as a recorded instrument, they took with notice, which is referred to as an existing lease, in the deed to them from Taylor, and which they attach as an exhibit to their bill.

In order to reach an intelligible construction of the lease, it will be necessary to have before us its entire language, as follows:

'This lease, made this ___ day of July, A. D. 1889, by and between John F. Taylor, of the county of Pleasants and state of West Virginia, of the first part, and Joseph S. Brown, of Pittsburgh, Pa., of the second part, witnesseth:

'That the said party of the first part, in consideration of fifteen dollars in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and the stipulations, rents, and covenants hereinafter contained, on the part of said party of the second part, to be paid, kept, and performed, hath granted, demised, and let unto the said party of the second part, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, for the sole and only purpose of boring, mining, and excavating for petroleum or carbon oil and gas, and piping of oil and gas, over all of that certain tract of land situate in Grant township, Pleasants county, and state of West Virginia, and bounded and described as follows, to wit: On the north, by lands of Mrs. Jones and the Ohio river; south, by lands of A. Smith; west, by county road; east, by Mrs. Jones', containing forty acres, more or less, excepting reserved therefrom ten acres, beginning at the railroad, and running thence to the county road, thence south with said county road to A. Smith's line, thence with said Smith's line to a line to be drawn from the railroad to meet it, upon which no wells shall be drilled without the consent of the party of the first part; to have and to hold said premises peaceably and quietly, for the said purposes, only for, during, and until the full term of two years next ensuing the date and year above written, or so long thereafter as oil or gas shall continue to be found thereon in paying quantities. The said party of the second part hereby covenants, in consideration of the said grant and demise, to deliver unto the said party of the first part, his heirs and assigns, the full, equal one-eighth part of the petroleum or carbon oil discovered, excavated, mined, pumped, and raised on the premises herein leased, as produced in the crude state, to be delivered in pipe lines at the wells; and, in case of a gas well being struck and utilized, then, in lieu of a royalty, the party of the first part agrees to accept a yearly rental of two hundred dollars for each and every well drilled on above-described premises. All pipe lines shall be laid along the fences, or buried two feet under ground. The said party of the first part to fully use and enjoy the said premises for the purpose of tillage, except such parts as may be necessary for said mining purposes, and a right of way to or from the place or places of said mining or excavating. The said party of the first part hereby grants to the party of the second part the right to remove any machinery, buildings, or fixtures placed on said premises by the said party of the second part. The party of the second part further to have the privilege of using sufficient water from the premises herein leased for the prosecution of said business. The party of the second part agrees to and will,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
79 cases
  • Brewster v. Lanyon Zinc Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • September 27, 1905
    ... ... favorable to the lessee, including the option to surrender it ... at any time. Brown v. Fowler, 65 Ohio St. 507, 525, ... 63 N.E. 76; Gas Co. v. Eckert, 70 Ohio St. 127, 135, ... 71 N.E. 281; Davis v. Wells, 104 U.S. 159, 168, ... all, is proportionally diminished. Lanyon Zinc Co. v ... Freeman (Kan.) 75 P. 995; Brown v. Spilman, 155 ... U.S. 665, 669, 15 Sup.Ct. 245, 39 L.Ed. 304; Ohio Oil Co ... v. Indiana (No. 1) 177 U.S. 190, 203-208, 20 Sup.Ct ... 576, 44 L.Ed ... ...
  • Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • August 11, 1931
    ...which the owner cannot be deprived without just compensation. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Brown v. Spilman, 155 U. S. 665, at page 669, 15 S. Ct. 245, 247, 39 L. Ed. 304, said: "Petroleum gas and oil are substances of a peculiar character, and decisions in ordinary cases of m......
  • Kansas Natural Gas Co. v. Haskell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Oklahoma
    • July 3, 1909
    ... ... In ... Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Adams, 180 U.S. 28, 21 ... Sup.Ct. 251, 45 L.Ed. 410, Mr. Justice Brown, delivering the ... opinion, says: ... 'The ... question whether this is a suit against the state, within the ... eleventh amendment to ... The rule of property right in ... natural gas and oil in all the states save Indiana is stated ... by Mr. Justice Shiras in Brown v. Spilman, 155 U.S ... 665, 15 Sup.Ct. 245, 39 L.Ed. 304, as follows: ... 'Petroleum ... gas and oil belong to the owners of the land, and are a ... ...
  • In re Skelton Lead & Zinc Co.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1921
    ...v. Alford, 168 U.S. 651, 42 L. Ed. 614, 18 S. Ct. 242; quoting and relying upon the same language which, we have above quoted. In Brown v. Spilman, 155 U.S. 665, the court expressly held that the lessee's share of oil, and gas, after it had been taken from the ground by the lessee, was then......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 5 LOCAL LAND USE REGULATION OF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Surface Use for Mineral Development in the New West (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, 177 U.S. 190 (1900). See also Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61 (1911) and Brown v. Spilman, 155 U.S. 665 (1895). [105] Patrick H. Martin & Bruce M. Kramer, Williams & Meyers Oil and Gas Law § 203 (2007). [106] Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council......
  • CHAPTER 1 POOLING AND UNITIZATION: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND AN INTRODUCTION TO BASIC VOCABULARY
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Federal Onshore Oil & Gas Pooling and Unitization (FNREL) (2014 ed)
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Wilson, 28 Vt. 49, 55 (1855). [29] See Brown v. Vandergrift, 80 Pa. 142, 147 (1875); Dark v. Johnston, 55 Pa. 164, 168 (1867). [30] 155 U.S. 665 (1895). [31] 155 U.S. at 669-70. The Supreme Court cites to Brown v. Vandegrift, note 29 supra to support the application of the rule of captur......
  • LOCAL LAND USE REGULATION OF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Surface Use for Mineral Development in the New West (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, 177 U.S. 190 (1900). See also Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61 (1911) and Brown v. Spilman, 155 U.S. 665 (1895). [105] Patrick H. Martin & Bruce M. Kramer, Williams & Meyers Oil and Gas Law § 203 (2007). [106] Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council......
  • LOCAL REGULATION OF OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS: DON'T ALL HOMEOWNERS WANT A PUMPJACK IN THEIR BACKYARD
    • United States
    • FNREL - Journals Local Regul. of Oil & Gas Ops. - Don't All Homeowners Want a Pumpjack in Their Backyard (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, 177 U.S. 190 (1900). See also Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61 (1911) and Brown v. Spilman, 155 U.S. 665 (1895). [77] Martin & Kramer, Williams & Meyers Oil and Gas Law § 203 (2003). [78] Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT