Great Southern Gas & Oil Co. v. Logan Natural Gas & Fuel Co.
| Citation | 155 F. 114 |
| Decision Date | 25 May 1907 |
| Docket Number | 1,612. |
| Parties | GREAT SOUTHERN GAS & OIL CO. v. LOGAN NATURAL GAS & FUEL CO. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
F. A Durban and Wm. B. Sanders, for appellant.
G. E Shaw and C. H. Grosvenor, for appellee.
Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and RICHARDS, Circuit Judges.
This case was here upon the questions arising over conflicting leases of the oil and gas rights in the same land. The facts are fully stated in our former opinion. 126 F. 623, 61 C.C.A 359. Shortly after the litigation began defendants struck gas, and they continued to take and market the gas until the well was exhausted.
The court below referred the case to a special master for an accounting as to the value of the gas. It appeared that the gas from the well was conducted to a pipe line, together with the gas from some 60 wells owned by the defendant, and that no serious effort was made to measure the contribution of this well to the pipe line. Upon the theory of confusion of goods by a trespasser, the master charged the defendant with the gross receipts for the entire product of its 60 wells aggregating over $1,000,000. Upon exceptions this report was set aside, and the value of the gas fixed by the Circuit Judge at $10,000, that being the estimated market value of a gas well of the approximate productiveness of this well in the Sugar Grove field. The plaintiff assigned error to this decree. That it was a trespasser ab initio must be now conceded. That it continued to use this gas during the litigation which denied its title, and that it did this taking no care to determine the amount of the gas or its value thus wrongfully taken, must be also conceded. Conceding that it was a good faith claimant and that the litigation was not flimsy, but bona fide, it nevertheless remains that it must fully compensate the plaintiff. Powers v. U.S., 119 F. 562, 56 C.C.A. 128; Jegon v. Vivian, L.R. 6 Ch.App. 742, 761; Whitney v. Huntington, 37 Minn. 197, 33 N.W. 561; Ross v. Scott, 15 Lea (Tenn.) 479. Having taken no step by which it can account for the property of plaintiff, it must submit to every inconvenience in ascertaining that compensation and all reasonable doubts which arise in that accounting. Wetherbee v. Green, 22 Mich. 311, 7 Am.Rep. 653. The reasonable market value of a gas well does not, under the peculiar circumstances, compensate plaintiff. That would be to give it only the value of the gas in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
York v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York
...issue was reduced to $15,000,000 and, accordingly, Vaness then withdrew the $7,500,000. 18 See also, Great Southern Gas & Oil Co. v. Logan Natural Gas & Fuel Co., 6 Cir., 155 F. 114, 115, certiorari denied 207 U.S. 590, 28 S.Ct. 256, 52 L.Ed. 354; Lincoln v. Orthwein, 5 Cir., 120 F. 880, 88......
-
Baird v. Franklin
...122 F.2d 469, certiorari denied Waterman v. The Aakre, 314 U.S. 690, 62 S.Ct. 360, 86 L.Ed. 552; or Great Southern Gas & Oil Co. v. Logan Natural Gas & Fuel Co., 6 Cir., 155 F. 114, 115, certiorari denied 207 U.S. 590, 28 S.Ct. 256, 52 L.Ed. 354 (confusion of goods), or F. W. Woolworth Co. ......
-
Upson v. Otis
...statute, see The Pennsylvania, 19 Wall. 125, 136, 22 L.Ed. 148, and in cases of confusion of goods, Great Southern Gas & Oil Co. v. Logan Natural Gas & Fuel Co., 6 Cir., 155 F. 114, 115; cf. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. N. L. R. B., 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 658, 663, the wrongdoer may not object to the p......
-
Package Closure Corporation v. Sealright Co.
...criticism of the misuse of that Rule. 14 See, for instance, cases of confusion of goods such as Great Southern Gas & Oil Co. v. Logan Natl. Gas & Fuel Co., 6 Cir., 155 F. 114, 115, certiorari denied 207 U.S. 590, 28 S.Ct. 256, 52 L.Ed. 354. Compare the heavy burden of proof put on a ship in......