Brookbank v. Benedum-Trees Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1957 |
| Citation | 389 Pa. 151,131 A.2d 103 |
| Parties | James H. BROOKBANK and B. & M. Oil and Gas Company v. BENEDUM-TREES OIL COMPANY, Charles L. Sample, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, Buffalo and Susquehanna Railroad Company, Bentex Oil Corporation, Penn-Ohio Gas Company, Hiawatha Oil and Gas Company, and C. S. Cameron, and New York State Natural Gas Company. Appeal of Charles L. SAMPLE, an individual. Appeal of BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROA CO., a Corporation. Appeal of BUFFALO AND SUSQUEHANNA RAILROAD COMPANY. Appeal of BENTEX OIL CORPORATION, a Corporation. Appeal of PENN-OHIO GAS COMPANY, a Corporation. Appeal of HIAWATHA OIL AND GAS COMPANY, a Corporation. Appeal of C. S. CAMERON, an individual. Appeal of BENEDUM-TREES OIL COMPANY. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Reargument Denied June 20, 1957. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Elder W. Marshall, Charles E. Kenworthey, Reed, Smity Shaw & McClay, Coppolo, Driscoll, Gregory & Coppolo, St Harvey A. Miller, Jr., Pittsburgh, B. R. Marys, J. Tomlinson Fort, Pittsburgh, Harvey A. Miller, Sr., Miller & Miller, Pittsburgh, John L. Rogers, Jr., Baltimore, Md., for appellants.
William H. Eckert, Frank L. Seamans, Smith, Buchanan, Ingersoll, Rodewald & Eckert, Robert F. Patton, Pittsburgh, Clarence O. Devore, Monongahela, for appellee.
Before CHARLES ALVIN JONES, C. J., and BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, ARNOLD, BENJAMIN R. JONES and COHEN, JJ.
This appeal presents an inquiry into the rights, if any, of a railroad company and its assignees to drill for natural gas under an abandoned railroad bed which crosses a tract of land in Cameron County.
James H. Brookbank, one of two appellees, [1] is the owner os a 90 acre tract of land situated in Gibson Township, Cameron County, over a portion of which the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company operated a railroad until 1942. [2] The appellants are six corporations and two individuals, who claim an interest in a natural gas well drilled by or for them on or about April 1, 1953 on the former railroad bed crossing Brookbank's land, together with the corporation which purchases the gas recovered from the well.
Brookbank claims that the railroad company had simply a 'right of way' [3] across his land for railroad purposes and, upon the cessation of its use for railroad purposes in 1942, the land within the 'right of way' reverted to him as the present owner of the fee. The appellants claim that the railroad company in 1903 acquired by purchase from Brookbank's predecessors in title an estate in fee in the strip of land over which the railroad crossed which estate carried with it the right to the minerals, including gas, under the strip of land. The rights of the respective parties depend solely upon the interpretation of a written agreement dated January 7, 1903.
In 1902 one J. J. Ingraham and his wife owned this tract of land. [4] On August 14, 1902, the Susquehanna and Southern Railroad Company, acting through its board of directors, formally adopted a resolution which located a route for a railroad to be constructed from Sinnemahoning, Cameron County, to Sykesville, Jefferson County, an operative survey thereof having been completed. As located the proposed route crossed the Ingraham (now the Brookbank) farm. Subsequent thereto--January 7, 1903--the Ingrahams and the railroad company entered into the following written agreement:
'Know All Men By These Presents, That, J. J. Ingraham and Anna Ingraham parties of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Three Hundred Dollars, lawful money of the United States, duly paid by the railroad company hereinafter mentioned, to us, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold, released and conveyed unto the Susquehanna and Southern Railroad Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, its successors and assigns, a strip of land four rods in width, and, through cuts and fills such additional widths as may be needed for slopes, one-half thereof on either side of the center line as now located, of the Susquehanna and Southern Railroad, leading from Sinnemahoning, Pennsylvania, to DuBois, Sykesville, &c., through lands of the parties above mentioned, situate in Gibson Township, Cameron County, Pennsylvania.
'Together with the right to enter upon the said land and lay out, construct, maintain and operate a railroad over and across the lands belonging to the parties above mentioned, taking and using such earth, stones and gravel, as may be needed for grading and filling such road, and hereby fully releasing said railroad company, its successors and assigns, from all liability by reason of the location, construction and operation of the said railroad.
'A good farm crossing and cattle guard on each side thereof to be built and maintained by said Company.
'In Witness Whereof, the parties first above named hereunto set their hands and seals the Seventh day of January, 1903.
County of Cameron. *) SS:
'Personally appeared before the subscriber, a Justice of the Peace, the above-named J. J. Ingraham and Anna Ingraham, his wife, who in due form of law acknowledged the foregoing release to be their act and deed and desired the same might be recorded as such,
'Witness my hand and official seal this 7 day of January, 1903.
'B. Netey
J. P. (LS)'
Ingrahams' rights under this instrument now belong to Brookbank and the railroad company's rights belong to the appellants with the exception of the corporation which simply purchases the gas as produced.
After this instrument was executed the railroad company built and operated a railroad which was located on the route previously adopted to a width of four rods or 66 feet. Although the tracks and ties have not been removed from the roadbed, trains have not been operated thereon for approximately 14 years and the railroad has ceased actual operation. On the Brookbank farm and in close proximity thereto the railroad was constructed on a high embankment and through deep cuttings due to the nature of the terrain.
On January 3 and January 20, 1953, the appellees drilled two gas wells on the Brookbank farm both of which turned out to be successful. In April 1953, the appellants [5] drilled a gas well on the railroad bed and, although warned of appellees' rights, continued to drill successfully. The gas produced from appellants' well comes from the same underground reservoir as the gas from appellees' second well.
In an equity action instituted by appellees, the court below enjoined the appellants from removing any further gas, required them to account and make restitution for the gas previously taken and granted other equitable relief. From a final decree this appeal was taken.
We must determine what estate and interest, if any, the railroad company received under the written instrument of January 7, 1903 from the predecessors in title of Brookbank. Did this instrument convey to the railroad a fee simple title to the land or a base or conditional fee which upon abandonment of the land for railroad purposes would revert to the original owners or their successors in title? Upon the construction of this instrument depend the rights of the parties, and, in construing this instrument, our primary object must be to ascertain and effectuate what the parties intended: Hess v. Jones, 335 Pa. 569, 7 A.2d 299. [6]
The instant agreement appears on a printed form. The handwritten [7] portions of the agreement set forth the name of the parties of the first part (Ingrahams), the amount of consideration, the name of the township and county, the clause providing for the erection and maintenance of a farm crossing and cattle guard on each side of the railroad, [8] the dates of execution and acknowledgment, and the name and title of the acknowledging officer. All the rest of the agreement is printed. It is self-evident that the form was prepared by the railroad company for use in its various land transactions. This fact of preparation carries with it the burden of responsibility for the use of the words and phrases in the printed portion of the instrument.
Appellants predicate their conclusion that the parties intended by the instrument to convey a title in fee simple upon the following premises: (1) the so-called 'operative words'--'granted, bargained, sold, released and conveyed'--employed to convey the land to the railroad, 'its successors or assigns' were the ordinary and usual words used to convey a fee simple title; (2) the fact that the instrument conveyed a 'strip of land' rather than a 'right of way' was indicative of an intent to convey an estate in fee simple; (3) since the statute which conferred the right to acquire land by eminent domain limited the taking to 60 feet, the conveyance of a strip of land not to exceed four rods or 66 feet negatives the idea that this instrument had any connection with eminent domain procedure.
On the other hand, appellees predicate their conclusion that the parties intended to convey only a limited fee upon the following premises: (1) that the small amount of consideration paid indicates a limited estate was intended; (2) the fact that the 'operative words' were used in the past, not in the present tense, indicates that the instrument was not conveying any title but rather such language made reference to the steps already taken in the eminent domain procedure by which a taking of the land had been effected; (3) the words 'as now located' in the description of the subject matter of the instrument referred to the prior taking by location of the route of the railroad; (4) the omission of any habendum, tenendum and warranty clauses negatives the idea that a fee simple title was being...
To continue reading
Request your trial