Gillespie v. Fulton Oil & Gas Co.
| Decision Date | 23 April 1909 |
| Citation | 239 Ill. 326,88 N.E. 192 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | GILLESPIE v. FULTON OIL & GAS CO. et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Crawford County; E. E. Newlin, Judge.
E. N. Gillespie, trustee, filed a bill against the Fulton Oil & Gas Company and others, which was dismissed for want of equity, and the decree having been affirmed by the Appellate Court, he appealed to the Supreme Court, where it was reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to enter a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill. Upon the filing of the mandate, the circuit court entered a decree for complainant, from which defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Parker & Eagleton, George W. Jones, and Jay A. Hindman, for appellants.
Callahan, Jones & Lowe, Golden, Scholfield & Scholfield, Parker & Crowley, and Charles Gibbs Carter, for appellee.
The appellee filed a bill in the circuit court of Crawford county against the appellants for an injunction, accounting, and other relief. Answers were filed, a hearing was had on the pleadings and evidence, and a decree was rendered dismissing the bill for want of equity. The Appellate Court affirmed this decree, but upon the complainant's appeal to this court it was reversed, and the cause was remanded to the circuit court, with directions to enter a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill. 236 Ill. 188, 86 N. E. 219. Upon the filing of the mandate the circuit court entered a decree in favor of the complainant, from which the defendants have appealed, and they now insist that the decree is not in accordance with the directions of this court.
Two objections are made to the decree: First, that it adjudicates the question of the estate of homestead of the appellant S. C. Bowman; second, that it requires the surrender to appellee of the personal property on the premises.
The pleadings and evidence appear in the report of the case when it was here on the former appeal. The bill made no reference to the homestead. We held that there were no averments in any of the answers showing the existence of a homestead and no proof to sustain such averments, and directed that a decree should be entered in accordance with the prayer of the bill. The prayer was for an injunction against taking oil or gas from the premises, selling any oil or gas obtained from the premises, and drilling wells thereon, and against preventing the complainant from entering upon the premises and operating them for oil and gas; for a decree that the complainant's lease was the only subsisting lease on the premises for oil and gas purposes, and for the cancellation of the lease to T. N. Rogers as a cloud upon complainant's title; for a discovery and accounting of the amount and value of the oil and gas taken from the premises; for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of and operate the property pending the suit; and for general relief. The decree rendered provides as follows: ‘As to the issue made by the said defendants as to the estate of homestead of the said S. C. Bowman in the premises described in said lease given to the said T. E. Pierce by the said Bowman, the court finds said issues against the said defendant and in favor of the said complainant; that said defendant cannot have any advantage of the defense that the premises were a homestead; and that the said complainant and his associates should, during the existence of said lease, control, manage, operate, and enjoy said lease and the leasehold estates conveyed by the said S. C. Bowman to the said T. E. Pierce under the lease hereinbefore set out at length, as fully and to all intents and purposes as to the said defendants the same as they could have done if the estate of homestead had been regularly waived in said lease as is by the statute in such case made and provided.’
Since neither the allegations nor prayer of the bill mentioned the homestead, and the answers raised no issue in regard to it, the decree could not propertly make any finding or order in regard to it. The effect of the decree adjudging that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
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 ... ...
- Rich v. Doneghey
-
Frost-Johnson Lumber Co. v. Salling's Heirs
... ... S.) 487; Campbell v. Smith, ... 180 Ind. 159, 101 N.E. 89; Louisville Gas Co. v. Kentucky ... Heating Co., 132 Ky. 435, 111 S.W. 374; Gillespie v ... Fulton Oil Co., 239 Ill. 326, 88 N.E. 192; Poe v ... Ulrey, 233 Ill. 56, 84 N.E. 46; Dark v ... Johnston, 55 Pa. 164, 93 Am. Dec. 732; ... ...
-
Martel v. Hall Oil Co.
...Gartlan, (W. Va.) 29 S.E. 978; Watford Co. v. Shipman, (Ill.) 84 N.E. 53; 1 Thornton's Oil and Gas, 4th Ed., Sections 20-57; Gillespie v. Co., (Ill.) 88 N.E. 192; Oil Co. v. Co., 103 P. 927. Where there is no substantial evidence to support plaintiff's case, the court should direct a verdic......