GUFFY v. HUKILL.

• Decision Date: 10 June 1890
• Citation: 34 W.Va. 49
• Parties: GUFFY v. HUKILL.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

34 W.Va. 49

GUFFY

v.HUKILL.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted June 10, 1890-Decided .June 24, 1890.

1. Lease Conditions Breach Forfeiture.

Where a lease for years contains a clause of forfeiture for breach of its covenant to pay rent or other covenant, but no clause of re-entry for such forfeiture, demand and re-entry is not the only mode by which the landlord may enforce the forfeiture.

2. Lease Conditions Forfeiture Re-Entry.

A lease for years for drilling for petroleum-oil and gas contains the following provision: "The parties of the second part covenant to commence operations for said purposes within nine months from and after the execution of this lease, or to thereafter pay to the party of the first part one dollar and thirty three and a third cents per month until work is commenced, the money to be deposited in the hands of John Kennedy for each and every month. And a failure on the part of said second parties to comply with either one or the other of the foregoing conditions shall work an absolute forfeiture of this lease," and there is no covenant for re-entry, and there is failure to commence operations and to pay money in lieu thereof, and the lessor leases to another person. Held, the first lease is thus avoided, and the second lease is good against it, as the execution of the second lease is a sufficient declaration of forfeiture without demand and re-entry.

3. Lease Unlawful Detainer.

The second lessee may maintain unlawful detainer against the first lessee in possession.

Keck $ Son for plaintiff in error, cited:

1 W. Va. 117; 8 W. Ya. 308; 6 W. Ya. 515; Id. 212; Code c. 93, 16, IT; 18 W. Va. 12; 23 Graft. 278; Hutchinson Treat, 673-679; 2 Lorn. Dig. 91; Smith's Lead.

Cas. 93-97; 4 Kent Comm. 131 t. p.; 6 W. Va. 206; 21 W. Va. 277; 23 Graft. 234; 18 Gratt. 278.

0. Johnson for plaintiff in error, cited:

24 W. Va. 657; 3 Rand. 516; 10 W. Va. 14 5; 21 W. Va. 530; 25 W. Va. 678; 26 W. Va. 274; Id. 149; 28 W. Va. 524; 29 W. Va. 778; 1 W. Va. 117; 8 W. Va. 308; 13 W. Va. 18 p't 4 Syll.; 24 W. Va. 685; 9 Leigli 511; 4 Gratt. 283; 10 W. va, 596; 2 Leigh 488; Bac. Abr. Obligations (c); 4 T. 11. 313; 9 W. Ya. 447; 3 T. B. Mon. 376; Code c. 13 § 15; 8 IT. & M. 144; 15 Gratt. 108; 10 W. va. 596; Code c. 72 § 4; 5 W. va. 547; 12 Graft. 98; 12 Wall. 47; 7 How. 172; 102 IT. S. 68; 107 LI. S. 466; 8 Wheat. 1; 13 Pet. 107; 103 IT. S. 756; 1 How. 189; 21 How. 498; 10 How. 843; 4 Wall. 232; 109 IT. S. 504; 2 MeL. 596; 4 Low & Mar. 812; 17 Comm. 441; 25 Am. Dec. 282; 29 Am. Dec, 543; 128 Mass. 291; 10 Am. Dec. 705; 26 W. Va. 141: 6 Leigh 278; 5 Rand. 1; 3 Leigh 147; 6 W. va. 508; 8 W. va. 515; 18 W. va. 579; 26 W. va. 345; 51 N. J. L. 34; 123 Pa. St. 491; Wills v. Nat. Gas Co., Pittsb. Leg. Journ. Nov. 20, 1889; 6 B. & C. 519; 6 M. & S. 121; 2 Chitt. 247; Tayl. Land. & Ten. § 492; 4 I). & A. 401, 664; 1 M. & W. 402; 124 Mass. 584; 12 Barb. 440; 12 Ind. 194; 29 Conn. 331; 85 Conn. 25; 17 Johns. (56; 1 How. 211; 6M. &S.121 2 B & Aid. 168; 6 Serg. & R. 151; 4 Rawle 128; 8 Am. & Eng. Eney. of Law 448; 7 East 363; 3C. & P. 613; 3 Wend. 230; 15 Wall. 471; 40 Cal. 284; 56N.Y.157; 2 Comst. 141; 12 Ohio R. 214; 21 B. J. Saund. 287 N. 16; 13 Ohio St. 471; 7 Wall. 420; Tayl. Land. & Ten. § 493, N. 6; 29 Conn. 331; 1 M. & W. 402; 40 Mo. 449; 118 Mass. 118; 4 Col. 303; 58 N. Y. 323; 3 Cal. 834; 68 Ind. 415; 3 Ind. 132; 21 Ind. 454; 53 Ind. 229; 41 Cal. 432; 100 Mass. 858; 49 Ill. 211; 98 Pa. 565; 18 W. Va. 12; 15 Wall. 471;

1 How. 211; 7 Wall. 416; 27 Conn. 331; 4 Cush. 152; 3 C. & P. 613; 63 Ind. 415; 8 Ind. 182; 21 Ind. 454; 58 Ind. 229; 3 Cal. 273; 40 Cal. 884; 41 Cal. 444; 49Ill.211; 4 Col. 303; 6B. &C. 519; 80 Pa. St. 142; 96 Pa. St. 307; 21 linn 26;

2 Keys 323; 69 N. Y. 264; 1 Saund. dry 52; 2 Seld. 81; 9 Paige 427; (5 Linn. 419; Stat. 4 Geo. II, c. 28 §2; 3 Harris 306; 123 Pa. St. 491; Westmoreland & Cambria Gas Co. v. DeWitt, Pittsb. Leg. Journ. Dec. 11, 1889; 31 W. Va. 101; 22 W. Va. 521; Tayl. Land. & Ten. 370; 2 Bonv. L. Diet. "Kent." 437; 1 Wall. 61; 60 Pa. St. 452; 29 Conn. 340; 62 N Y. 486; 48 K Y. 486; 4 Munf. 332; 16 Yes. 402; 2 Conn. 299; 22 Mo. 369; 1 Edw. Ch'y 394; 44 Yt. 285; 26 N. J. E. 434; 8 Am. Rep. 368; 3 Call 491; 23 Gratt. 831.

J. W. Donnan of counsel for Hukill cited: 3 Cal. 59; 38 Am. Dec. 383; 1 S. & M. 494; 14 Pet. 97; 3 Ind; 316; 18 K H. 340; 1 S. & M.111; Wood Stat, of Frauds § 415; 1 Esp. 190; 58 Md. 546; 9 Leigh 387; 130 Pa. 222; 1 Washb. Real Prop. 331*; 6 Serg. & R. 152; 29 Conn. 831; 6 I rod. 67; Tayl. Land. & Ten. §§ 492, 495; 13 W. Va. 12; 49 111. 211; 100 Mass. 353; 4 K II. 251; 20 Ill. 120; 15 N. H. 72; 17 Johns. 70; 40 Cal. 384; 13 Ohio N. S. 471; 1 Smith Lead. Gas. 132-134 & cases cited; 15 Wall. 476; 1 How. 215; 146 Mass. 399; 68 Am. Dec. 85 N; 15 Norris 807; 21 Hun 26; Broo. Leg. Max. 457; 60 Pa. St. 172; 18 Law Times R. N. S. 806; 57 Pa. St. 88; 95 Pa. St. 258; 8 Weekly Notes Cas. 225; 2 Pa. County Court 165.

Berkshire § Sticrgiss for defendants in error, cited: 15 Gratt, 190; 9 W. Ya, 67; 80 Pa. St. 142; 96 Pa. St. 307; 123 Pa. St. 491; 25 Week. Notes of Cas. 69; 20 Pittsb. Leg. Journ. K S. 165; Litt. Inst, 218 a.; Cr. Dig. Tit. XIII c. 2, § 45; 5 Serg. & R, 875; 19 K Y. 100; 21 How. 26.

Alfred Caldwell of counsel for defendants in error, cited: 1 Whart. Ev. 726, 740; 2 Phi 11. Ev. 210; 1 Greenl. 572; 25 W. Va. 642; 8 W. Va. 515; 30 W. Va 34; 8 W. Va. 558; 2 Am. Lead. Cas. 549 et seq.; 1 Washb. Real Prop. 542; 81 Va. 764; 84 Va. 706; Tayl. Land. & Ten. §§14, 31; 102 U.S. 64; 107U. S. 437; 111 LI. S. 584; 101 Pa. St. 452; 57 Pa. St. 88; 107 Pa. St, 57; 3 P. E. Smith 229; 15 lYorris 807; 30 P. E. Smith 142; 8 Cas. 241; 120 Pa. St. 590; 88 Pa. St. 198; 96 Pa. St. 307; 55 Pa. St. 164; 72 Pa. St. 173; 77 Pa, St. 221; 128 Pa. St. 491; 112 Pa. St. 448; 110 Pa. St. 812; 4 W. Va. 548; 21 Hun 26; 1 Smith Lead. Cas. 109 s. p.; 2 Sold. 81; 9 Paige 427; 86 N. Y. 638; 13 W. Va. 12; 47 Mich. 55; 89 K C. 31; 83 Va. 547; Code c. 93 § 16 et seq.; Coke Lilt. 218 b.; 5 Serg. & R, 385; 1 Smith Lead. Cas. 87; Ad. Eject. 20, 21; 25 Gratt. 789; 25 W. Va 407; 24 W. Va. 685; 12 Gratt. 473; 28 Gratt. 363; Code c. 134 § 1; 18 Gratt. 648; 78Ill.75; Tayl. Land. & Ten. § 312; 24 111. 278; 8 Hill 33; 5 Serg. & R. 424; 29 Md. 324; 21 K H. 234; 24 Mo. 13; 50 Mo. 350; Tayl. Land. & Ten. § 54; 4 Rand. 468, 476, 477.

A. F. TIaymond of counsel for defendants in error, cited: 2 White & Tud. 1051, 1052, 1061; 3 Leigh 161, 186, 187; 1 Lorn. Dig. 148, 267, 280; 2 White & Tud. 1119-1124; 2 la. 126; 2 Paige Ch'y 222; 80 Pa. St, 142; 96 Pa. St, 307; 128 Pa. St. 491; 21 Hun 26; 17 Ohio 425; 21 Ill. 227; 55 Ill. 307; 63 Ill. 468; Code c. 93 16-18; 13 W. Va. 12; 1 Loin. Dig. 280; 5 Mass. 821; 44 X. 11.90; 17 Serg. & R. 875; 12 Reporter 166; 82 Me. 394; 27 Gratt. 403; 12 Leigh 524; 6 Gratt. 517; 1 Greenl. Ev. (13th Ed.) § 572; 3 Call 492 s. p.; 83 Gratt, 497, 501, 502; 20 W. Va. 511 pt. 6 syll., 567; 9KY.100; 25 Weekly Cas. 69; 20 Pittsb. Leg. Jo urn. N S. 165.

Btlannon, Judge:

This was an action of unlawful detainer in the Circuit Court of Monongalia by Gutfy and Murphy against Ilukill for possession of thirty acres of land for drilling for petrolium-oil and gas, in which there was judgment for plaintiffs, to which judgment IIukilL obtained this writ of error.

The case was decided upon a demurrer to evidence, from which it appears to be a contest between those claiming under two conflicting leases made by Wise for drilling for oil and gas. Wise made to Hays a lease of this thirty acres, dated 30th June, 1886, for twenty years, which on 10th January, 1889, was assigned to Ilukill. Under this lease Ilukill defends.

By lease dated 11th July, 1888, Wise leased the thirty acres to Rezin Calvert for twenty years, and Calvert assigned this lease to Ida C. and Vinnie Calvert on 16th March, 1889, and they assigned it to Guffey and Murphy on 8th May, 1889. Under this lease the plaintiffs claim.

It is claimed by the plaintiffs that the hostile lease to Hays became forfeited under provisions contained in it, and therefore the later lease to Calvert confers a valid right. This Hays lease contains this clause: "The parties of the second part covenant to commence operations for said purposes within nine months from and after the execution of this lease, or to thereafter pay to the party of the first part one dollar and thirty three and a third cents per month until work is commenced, the money to he deposited in the hands of John Kennedy for each and every month, and a failure on the part of the said second parties to comply with cither one or the other of the foregoing conditions shall work an absolute forfeiture of this lease." Hays' lease was recorded 26th. October, 1886, before the execution of the Calvert lease. About 1st May 1889, Hukil began boring for oil under the Hays lease and continued the work until November, 1889, when he obtained large quantities of oil in two wells. No rent was paid under the provision for the monthly payment of one dollar and thirty three and a third cents on the Hays lease until about 4th January, 1889, when or later Hays paid it to Wise. Kennedy in October, 1888, offered to pay Wise this rent, but he declined to receive it then but received it afterwards from Hays. All the rent due Wise under the Hays lease was paid him. I In kill took possession under the Hays lease and began boring for oil with the knowledge and consent of Wise. No demand was ever made by Wise on Hays for the rent, except that he called once on Kennedy for it,

An important question in tins case is whether or not the lease to Hays became forfeited and of no further force by reason of the failure to bore for oil or pay the monthly sum of one dollar and thirty three and a third cents in lieu thereof, and the subsequent lease by Wise to Calvert; for, if the Hays lease be still in life, ILukill can defend his possession, but, if dead, it affords him no defence. Such boring or the monthly payment of one dollar and...