Consumers Gas Utility Co. v. Wright

• Decision Date: 14 October 1947
• Docket Number: 9934.
• Citation: 44 S.E.2d 584,130 W.Va. 508
• Parties: CONSUMERS GAS UTILITY CO. v. WRIGHT et al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

44 S.E.2d 584

130 W.Va. 508

CONSUMERS GAS UTILITY CO. v. WRIGHT et al.

No. 9934.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

October 14, 1947

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In a contract for the sale of natural gas wherein the seller agrees to sell and the purchaser to take, at a stipulated rate, for a designated period each year during the term of the contract and so long thereafter as gas is produced in paying quantities, all the gas that 'may be produced' from a certain well, and such others as may thereafter be drilled, subject to other mutual conditions embraced in the contract, including one to the effect that the purchaser may have the flow of gas shut in any well or wells and remove the meter and lines if the production for a period of thirty days falls below ten thousand cubic feet a day, the seller may not, in the absence of failure to produce said minimum of ten thousand cubic feet in a thirty-day period, shut off the natural flow of the gas produced by its well or wells.

2. 'The mere existence of a legal remedy is not of itself sufficient ground for refusing relief in equity by injunction; nor does the existence or non-existence of a remedy at law afford a test as to the right to relief in equity. It must also appear that it is as practical and efficient to secure the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity.' Pt. 2, Syl Buskirk v. Sanders, 70 W.Va. 363, 73 S.E 937.

S A. Powell, of Harrisville, for appellant.

Harry E. Moats, of Harrisville, for appellees.

RILEY Judge.

Consumers Gas Utility Company, a corporation, which had filed its bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Ritchie County against Charles B. Wright and others, partners, doing business as Ranger Gas Company, prosecutes this appeal from a decree denying the relief prayed for, and dismissing the cause.

From the allegations of the bill it appears that at the time of the execution of the contract involved in this suit, plaintiff corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'utility' was engaged in producing, purchasing and distributing natural gas for heat and light to a number of municipalities in Ritchie County, and to that end owned and operated a number of gas wells and purchased natural gas from individuals, and, in emergencies, from other public utilities; that its plant consists of pipe lines, meters, regulators, connections, and other equipment, and that defendant, hereinafter referred to as the 'company', the lessee in a lease for oil and gas on a tract of land owned by one Lena Carr, had a short time prior thereto completed a producing gas well on the leased property. The bill further alleges that the parties litigant had on September 6, 1945, entered into an agreement whereby the company, in consideration of covenants on the part of the utility, sold to the utility, and the latter bought and agreed to take, at fifteen cents a thousand cubic feet, for a period of five years, and as much longer thereafter as gas is produced in paying and marketable quantities from the lands 'all the natural gas that may be produced' by the company 'from well [s] now drilled and any and all wells hereafter drilled', the marketing thereof to begin upon execution and delivery of the contract.

Under the aforesaid contract, which is incorporated in the bill, the company was to furnish, construct and maintain all necessary gathering lines and fittings to connect any producing well on said lands to the meter, and to install all drips and devices to separate any fluids from the gas in the gathering lines necessary to deliver the gas in a dry and marketable condition. All gas was to be measured by orifice, proportional or positive meter or measuring devices of equal accuracy, and all meters and appurtenant fixtures and structures properly to protect the same were to be installed or erected by the utility at the well free of costs to the company, the location thereof to be selected by mutual agreement. Both parties were to have access to the meters; the utility was to read them and was to remove the guage charts, etc. Provision was made for challenges as to the accuracy of the meters; and, further, the utility was to take gas nine months of each year, and so much longer as a market could be found therefor. The company agreed not to dispose of gas to any other company or person during the existence of said contract; and further that should it desire to surrender its lease prior to termination of its agreement with the utility, the latter was to have the right to an assignment therefor. The utility was also given the right to shut in any well or wells and remove the meter and lines if production for a period of thirty days should fall below ten thousand cubic feet a day until such time as the company should, by additional wells or repair of old wells, bring production up to the specified standard.

The bill further alleges that as a result of the contract the utility purchased 14,117 feet of two-inch pipe line, and expended a considerable sum of money on labor, connections and fittings, for rights of way and overhead expenses in laying said line from the gas well to its nearest main distributing...