Hall v. Douglas

• Decision Date: 19 October 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 5647.)
• Citation: 135 S.E. 282
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: HALL v. DOUGLAS et al.

135 S.E. 282

HALL

v.DOUGLAS et al.

(No. 5647.)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Oct. 19, 1926.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Roane County.

Suit by R. C. Hall against L. A. Douglas and others to partition surface and mineral interests in land. From an adverse decree, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.

Wm. S. Ryan and Thos. P. Ryan, both of Spencer, for appellant.

Raymond Dodson and Harold A. Ritz, both of Charleston, for appellee United Fuel Gas Co.

LITZ, P. The plaintiff, owning an undivided half of the surface, oil and gas of a tract of 1½ acres of land in Roane county, instituted this suit in chancery against the defendants, L. E. Garrett, as owner of the other undivided half of the surface, L. A. Douglas, R. R. Douglas, Hallie Douglas Adams, Ethel Townsend, Vera McKown, Ufa Douglas, J. B. Vineyard, Flora Vineyard, as owners of the remaining oil, gas, and other minerals, and the United Fuel Gas Company, lessee of the oil and gas interest of said D. A. Douglas, R. R. Douglas, Hallie Douglas Adams, Ethel Townsend, Vera McKown, and Ufa Douglas praying for partition among the parties of the said surface and mineral interests. The defendant United Fuel Gas Company demurred to the bill, and filed its answer, averring that the land contains valuable deposits of oil and gas which is not susceptible of partition in kind, and praying for dismissal of the plaintiff's bill, or the sale of the minerals and division of the proceeds among the parties in interest.

Proof was taken establishing the probable existence of gas in paying quantities within the land. By a decree of the circuit court it was declared that the surface only of the land can be partitioned, and commissioners were appointed for that purpose. Appealing from this decree, the plaintiff asserts that the court should have directed the partition of the oil and gas in kind, and further that, if the oil and gas was not susceptible of partition in kind, the court should have directed a sale and distribution of the proceeds.

Oil and gas interests in land shown to contain probable deposits of oil and gas in paying quantities are not susceptible of partition in kind, but may be partitioned by sale and distribution of the proceeds to the parties in interest. Morley v. Smith, 93 W. Va. 682. 118 S. E. 135; Robertson Consolidated Land Co. v. Paull, 63 W. Va. 249, 59 S. E. 1085, 15 Ann. Cas. 775; Preston v. White, 57 W. Va. 278, 50 S. E. 236; Hall v....