Gillespie v. Fulton Oil & Gas Co.
Decision Date | 26 October 1908 |
Citation | 86 N.E. 219,236 Ill. 188 |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Parties | GILLESPIE et al. v. FULTON OIL & GAS CO. et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, Fourth District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Crawford County; E. E. Newlin, Judge.
Suit by E. N. Gillespie, trustee, and others, against the Fulton Oil & Gas Company and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.
George B. Gillespie and A. M. Fitzgerald (Charles Gibbs Carter, Hamlin, Gillespie & Fitzgerald, and Callahan, Jones & Lowe, of counsel), for appellants.
George W. Jones, for appellees.
E. N. Gillespie, trustee, filed a bill in the circuit court of Crawford county against the Fulton Oil & Gas Company, S. C. Bowman, T. N. Rogers, and Walter Hennig, praying for an injunction, an accounting, the appointment of a receiver, and the cancellation of certain oil and gas leases executed by S. C. Bowman and wife to Rogers and by him assigned to Walter Henning. All of the defendants below answered the bill, and, replications having been filed, the cause was heard by the court upon the bill, answers, replications, and proofs submitted in open court. The circuit court found the issues for the defendants, and dismissed the complainant's bill for want of equity. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Court for the Fourth District affirming the decree of the circuit court.
‘In witness whereof the parties hereunto have set their hands and seals this 17th day of May, 1905.
‘Witness: T. E. Pierce.’
The following is a copy of the assignment of the lease as set out in the amended bill: A certificate of acknowledgment of a notary public appears on this instrument.
After averring that appellant had kept and performed all of the covenants in said lease, and that he was able and willing to go on in good faith with the prompt performance of all of the covenants in said lease to be by him performed, the bill charges that on the 20th of August, 1906, without the consent or authority of appellant or any one interested with him in said lease, and in violation of appellant's rights under his leases, appellee S. C. Bowman pretended to lease said premises for oil and gas to T. N. Rogers, which said lease to Rogers was duly recorded in the recorder's office of Crawford county on August 31, 1906, which said pretended lease to T. N. Rogers the bill avers was taken with notice and knowledge of the prior lease given to T. E. Plerce and by him assigned to appellant. The bill alleges that on December[236 Ill. 194]19, 1906, after the filing of the original bill herein, a second lease from said Bowman to said T. N. Rogers was filed for record; that said second lease was acknowledged September 8, 1906, and is in all respects similar to the first lease, except in the first lease there was an agreement that Bowman, the lessor, would stand between the said lessee and his assigns and Pierce and pay all costs of any litigation that might be instituted on account of appellant's lease; that the second lease made to appellee Rogers omitted this indeminity clause, but the same agreement was made by a separate writing; that the first lease made to Rogers was by him assigned to the Fulton Oil & Gas Company, and the second lease to Rogers was assigned to Walter Hennig. The amended bill charges that the said Walter Henning, either on his own account or on behalf of the Fulton Oil & Gas Company, conspired with said Bowman to injure and defraud the said complainant by wrongfully taking possession of the premises, and boring and completing thereon a producing oil well of great value, from which large quantities of oil have been taken, and that said appellees are about to drill other wells on the premises, and have done, and are doing, irreparable damage to the premises and to the estate of appellant and his associates by depriving them of the oil and gas on said premises, which appellant claims he is entitled to; that appellee Bowman refuses to permit the appellant and his associates to go upon the premises and to operate for oil and gas under said lease. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lindlay v. Raydure
... ... onto it, and that even as against the lessor. That court so ... viewed the suit in case of Gillespie v. Fulton Oil & Gas ... Co., 236 Ill. 188, 86 N.E. 219. The suit there was ... against a rival lessee. The lease involved did not contain a ... ...
-
Carter Oil Co. v. Owen
...36 L.R.A.,N.S., 1108; Daughetee v. Ohio Oil Co., 263 Ill. 518, 105 N.E. 308. This case is not unlike that of Gillespie v. Fulton Oil & Gas Company, 236 Ill. 188, 86 N.E. 219, 221. There the lease involved recited the payment of $1 as consideration and contained the covenant that the lessee ......
-
Delfelder v. Teton Land & Investment Co.
... ... 1; ... Kitchell v. Burgwin, 21 Ill. 40; Gaither v ... Wilson (Ill.) 46 N.E. 58; Bank v. Harrison ... (Nebr.) 21 N.W. 446; Gillespie v. Co., (Ill.) ... 86 N.E. 219. There must be a compliance with the condition ... precedent to the investiture of the property. Burbank v ... ...
-
Rich v. Doneghey
... ... v ... Snodgrass, 71 W.Va. 438, 76 S.E. 961, 43 L. R. A. (N ... S.) 848; Pyle v. Henderson, 65 W.Va. 39, 63 S.E ... 762; Gillespie v. Fulton Oil Co., 236 Ill. 188, 86 ... N.E. 219 ... ... In Murray v. Barnhart, 117 La. 1023, 42 So. 489, ... the Supreme ... ...