Commonwealth v. Trent
Decision Date | 09 December 1903 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. TRENT et al. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Meade County.
"To be officially reported."
Penal action by the commonwealth against J. H. Trent, Jr., and others. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
J. D Hardin, Clifton J. Pratt, and J. W Lewis, for the Commonwealth. Humphrey Burnett & Humphrey, F. M. Sackett, and Alexander G. Barrett, for appellees.
This is a penal action instituted by the commonwealth against appellees. The court sustained a demurrer to the petition and dismissed the action. The only question on the appeal is whether the facts stated constitute a cause of action. It is averred in the petition that the defendants conspired and confederated together for the unlawful purpose of obtaining and wasting natural gas from lands embraced in the gas belt of Meade county, Ky.; that, to effectuate and carry out this purpose, they bored six wells in this gas belt, four of them proving to be fine, producing gas wells, and yielding about 600,000 feet of gas per day; that these wells were in the possession and under the absolute control of the defendants, either as owners, agents, or managers, and that the defendants, under the pretense of manufacturing lampblack, but really with the unlawful purpose to waste the gas and destroy the gas territory in Meade county, Ky. willfully and maliciously burned and wasted all of the gas from the four wells after it had been piped into a general tank or gasometer from the -- day of December, 1901 to the 14th day of June, 1902, in violation of the rights of the owners of the gas land, and contrary to the provisions of the statute. It is also alleged that the wells were not utilized by the defendants within three months after they were bored, nor shut in so as to prevent the product from wasting by escape, but that the defendants suffered and permitted the gas to escape and waste as above set out. It is insisted for the appellees that the facts stated make out no cause of action under the statute, for the reason that it is not charged that the gas was allowed to waste by escape at the well, and that the Legislature did not mean to make criminal the use by the citizen of his own property, even though that use brought him no pecuniary profit or was unwise. On the other hand, it is insisted for the state that, if the defendants willfully and maliciously wasted the gas, the form in which they did so is immaterial, under the statute. The question turns upon the proper construction of the act, which is as follows:
Acts 1891-93, pp. 60-62 (Ky. St. 1899, § § 3910-3914).
It is argued with much force that as by section 4 the adjoining owner is allowed to take possession of and plug up any well from which gas is allowed to escape by waste, and as by section 6 the act is made to take effect from its passage because of the gas then flowing to waste from wells which had been abandoned and never plugged up, the whole act applies only to abandoned wells, or those left open, and not to waste of gas elsewhere than at the well. Sections 2 and 5, by their terms, apply to abandoned wells, and the existence of these abandoned wells is the reason given in section 6 for making the act take effect from its passage; but sections 1 and 4 are not by their terms limited to abandoned wells, and, as abandoned wells are fully provided for in sections 2 and 5, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
C.C. Julian Oil & Royalties Co. v. Capshaw
... ... 1918E, 471; Quinton Relief Oil & Gas Co. v ... Corporation Commission, 101 Okl. 164, 224 P. 156, 157; ... Plymouth Coal Co. v. Commonwealth of Penn., 232 U.S ... 532, 34 S.Ct. 359, 58 L.Ed. 713; 6 R. C. L. 179 ... Neither ... is the act void for uncertainty. The ... Oklahoma (unreported) [ 1 ] ; Rich v. Doneghey, 71 Okl ... 204, 177 P. 86, 3 A. L. R. 352; Commonwealth v ... Trent, 117 Ky. 34, 77 S.W. 390, 4 Ann. Cas. 209; Ex ... parte Elam, 6 Cal.App. 233, 91 P. 811; Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Strauss (Tex. Civ. App.) ... ...
- C. C. Julian Oil & Royalties Co. v. Capshaw
-
Felts v. Edwards
... ... enacting the statute, the subject-matter, and the entire ... context of the statute and the consequences of its enactment ... Com. v. Trent, 117 Ky. 34, 77 S.W. 390, 25 Ky. Law ... Rep. 1180, 4 Ann. Cas. 209 ... The ... general rule of interpretation is ... [204 ... 195, 24 ... S.W. 118, 15 Ky. Law Rep. 578; Mason v. Rogers, 4 ... Litt. 376; Phillips v. Pope, 10 B. Mon. 172; ... Williams v. Commonwealth, 78 Ky. 93; Mercer ... County Court v. Gabbert, 5 Bush. 438; L. & N. R. R ... Co. v. Commonwealth, 97 Ky. 675, 31 S.W. 476, 17 Ky. Law ... ...
-
Calor Oil & Gas Co. v. Franzell
... ... neither can complain of such use by the other. We have ... already held, in the cases of Commonwealth v. Trent, ... etc., 117 Ky. 34, 77 S.W. 390, and Calor Oil & Gas ... Co. v. McGehee, 117 Ky. 71, 77 S.W. 368, that one who ... illegitimately ... ...
-
The Mischief Rule
...54–55 (1909); Smith v. Townsend, 148 U.S. 490, 499–501 (1893); The Emily, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 381, 388–89 (1824); Commonwealth v. Trent, 77 S.W. 390, 392 (Ky. 1903). For a possible example that is more recent and controversial, see AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339, 355 (201......