Brown v. Vandergrift
| Decision Date | 26 November 1875 |
| Parties | Brown <I>et al. versus</I> Vandergrift <I>et al.</I> |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, WILLIAMS, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Butler county: Of October and November Term 1875, No. 208.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
L. Z. Mitchell (with whom were G. W. Fleiger and E. S. Golden), for plaintiffs in error.—Forfeitures are odious and never enforced in equity, especially forfeitures for non-payment of rent: Paschall v. Passmore, 3 Harris 306; 18 Viner's Abr. 482; McCormick v. Connell, 6 S. & R. 151; Newman v. Rutter, 8 Watts 51; Forsyth v. Oil Co., 3 P. F. Smith 168; McKnight v. Krentz, 1 Id. 234; Lycoming Ins. Co. v. Schollenberger, 8 Wright 263; Heil v. Strong, Id. 265; Sharon Iron Co. v. Erie, 5 Id. 312. The compensation was $30 per month, fixed by the contract, and the parties were bound by it: Harris v. Liggett, 1 W. & S. 301. Lambing had the election to forfeit or pay the monthly compensation; having elected to pay rent, the remedy was changed: Layton v. Pearce, 1 Douglass 15; Sharon Iron Co. v. Erie, supra. Lambing was not to seek Brady to pay him; Brady could not forfeit without first demanding the rent: McCormick v. Connell, Newman v. Rutter, supra; Stoever v. Whitman, 6 Binney 419.
The reporter received no paper book from defendants in error.
The discovery of petroleum led to new forms of leasing land. Its fugitive and wandering existence within the limits of a particular tract was uncertain, and assumed certainty only by actual development founded upon experiment. The surface required was often small compared with the results, when attended with success; while these results led to great speculation, by means of leases covering the lands of a neighborhood like a flight of locusts. Hence it was found necessary to guard the rights of the landowner as well as public interest, by numerous covenants, some of the most stringent kind, to prevent their lands from being burdened by unexecuted and profitless leases, incompatible with the right of alienation, and the use of the land. Without these guards, lands would be thatched over with oil-leases by sub-letting, and a farm riddled with holes and bristled with derricks, or operations would be delayed so long as the speculator would find it hopeful or convenient to himself alone. Hence covenants became necessary to regulate the boring of wells, their number and time of succession, the period of commencement and of completion, and many other matters requiring special regulation. Prominent among these was the clause of forfeiture to compel performance and put an end to the lease in case of injurious delay, or a want of success. These leases were not valuable, except by means of development, unlike the ordinary terms for the cultivation of the soil, or for the removal of fixed minerals. A forfeiture for non-development or delay therefore cut off no valuable rights of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brewster v. Lanyon Zinc Co.
...and proportions so as to meet the very form and pressure of each particular case in all its complex habitudes.' In Brown v. Vandergrift, 80 Pa. 142, 148, a case the forfeiture of an oil lease, it was held by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: 'In a case like this equity follows the law, and......
-
United States v. Oregon & C.R. Co.
...was declared proper; and in Edwards v. Iola Gas Co., 65 Kan. 362, 69 P. 350, the court recognized the principle. So in Brown v. Vandergrift, 80 Pa. 142, 148, which was the forfeiture of an oil lease, the court said: 'In a case like this equity follows the law, and will enforce the covenant ......
-
Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission
...taps a deposit of oil or gas, extending under his neighbor's field, so that it comes into his well, it becomes his property. Brown v. Vandergrift, 80 Pa. 142, 147; Westmoreland & C. Nat. Gas Co.'s Appeal, 130 Pa. 235, 18 A. 724 5 L. R. A. While the state, in the exercise of its police power......
-
Madero v. Luffey
...‘fugitive and wandering existence within the limits of a particular tract is uncertain,’ as said by Chief Justice Agnew in Brown v. Vandergrift , 80 Pa. [142] 147, 148 [ (1875) ]. They belong to the owner of the land, and are part of it, so long as they are on or in it, and are subject to h......
-
The rule of capture - an oil and gas perspective.
...ONLY, BUT OF THE LAW ITSELF (Charles Butler ed., Professional Books 1985) (1832). (18) Dark, 55 Pa. at 168. See also Brown v. Vandergrift, 80 Pa. 142, 147 (1875) ("The discovery of petroleum led to new forms of leasing land. Its fugitive and wandering existence within the limits of a partic......