Huggins v. Daley

Decision Date06 February 1900
Docket Number325.
PartiesHUGGINS et al. v. DALEY.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

B. M Ambler and A. Dewey Follett, for appellants.

V. B Archer, for appellee.

Before SIMONTON, Circuit Judge, and PAUL and BRAWLEY, District Judges.

BRAWLEY District Judge.

This is an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of West Virginia. The appellee filed a bill in equity alleging that one A. P. Hodges had obtained from F. P Marshall a lease for oil and gas upon a certain tract of 50 acres of land situated in Ritchie county, W. Va., which had been assigned to him, and that subsequently said Marshall had leased the identical premises to J. J. and J. B. Huggins; and the prayer of the bill was that the said Huggins' and their associates should be restrained in prosecuting the work for developing said leasehold for oil, and that a receiver be appointed to take possession of said leasehold premises and operate the same, and that a decree should be entered canceling said lease as a cloud upon the tile of the appellee.

Marshall was an illiterate farmer, the owner in fee of the tract of land described; and on March 12, 1897, he entered into an agreement, under seal, of which the substantial parts are as follows:

In consideration of one dollar paid by Hodges, the lessee, the lessor 'does hereby grant, demise, and let unto the said lessee all the oil and gas in and under the following described tract of land, and also said tract of land for the purpose of operating thereon for oil and gas, with the right to use water therefrom, and all rights and privileges necessary or convenient for conducting said operations or hold any of the property or improvements placed or erected in and upon said land by the lessee as fixtures or as part of the realty.'

Then follows the description of the land. The habendum clause is as follows:

'To have the same unto and for the use of the lessee, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for the term of 5 years from the date thereof, and as much longer as oil or gas is found in paying quantities thereon, not exceeding the term of 35 years from the date thereof; yielding and paying to the lessor the one-seventh part or share of all the oil produced and saved on the premises.'

Then follows a further description of the method of delivering the oil into tanks, and a reservation of gas for the personal use of the lessor, and a proviso which is in the following terms:

'Provided, however, that a well shall be commenced upon the above-described premises within 30, and completed within 90, days from the date hereof; and, in case of failure to commence and complete said well as aforesaid, the lessee shall pay to the lessor a forfeiture of $50.'

This lease was not recorded until April 8, 1898. At the same time was recorded an assignment of half interest in said lease by Hodges to Daley, dated April 2, 1897, and acknowledged on April 4, 1898, and the assignment of the remaining half interest, dated April 2, 1898, and acknowledged April 4, 1898. The lease from Marshall to J. J. and J. B. Huggins was executed November 6, 1897, and recorded January 31, 1898.

Must testimony was taken tending to show that at the time of the execution of the lease Marshall was under the impression that the lease was only for 90 days, and that he believed that the words '5 years' had been stricken from the printed form of the lease, and '90 days' written therein; and in the copy of the lease which was given to him by Hodges the words '5 years' were stricken out, and '90 days' substituted, but it appears that the substitution was not in the handwriting of Hodges. The proviso was in the handwriting of Hodges; the remainder of the lease being printed, with the exception of some interlineations. There was also testimony to the effect that Daley was a partner of Hodges, and that Hodges had taken the lease for the benefit of the Cairo Oil Company, and impeaching the bona fides of the assignment to Daley. The conclusions reached by us do not require the determination of these questions, if, indeed, they are properly before us. It is undisputed that nothing was done by Hodges towards boring the well. It is clear from the testimony that he had no intention at any time to bore the well within 90 days stipulated, and that he had not the means to do so if he had any such intention. In November following the execution of the lease to Hodges, the appellants leased from one Moore the land adjoining Marshall's for the purpose of operating for oil, and began to bore a well within 100 feet of Marshall's line, and about the same time they leased the land of Marshall for the purpose of operating for oil. At the time they took this lease they had knowledge that Hodges had some claim upon the land, and Marshall exhibited to them what purported to be a copy of the Hodges' lease. In this copy, as above stated, the words '5 years' had been stricken out, and '90 days' substituted; and after submitting the copy to a lawyer, and being informed that the lease had no further validity, they commenced operations upon the Marshall land, and expended about $3,600 in the boring of a well. About the time they struck pay sand, and after the well upon the Moore land was flowing oil, on April 15, 1898, Daley filed his bill for injunction. Their lease had been recorded January 31st, and some time between that day and the filing of the bill, but after they had commenced operations, Daley came upon the land, and informed them that he had some claim thereto; but the Hodges' lease and assignment to Daley was not recorded until April 8th, 10 days before the filing of the bill.

The question for decision is whether the proviso in the Hodges lease constituted a condition precedent, and whether the failure of Hodges to do anything towards the boring of the well did not prevent the vesting of any rights under that lease. By the terms of that instrument the lessor granted to the lessee all the oil and gas in and under the land described, 'and also the said tract of land for the purpose of operating thereon for oil and gas. ' By a course of decisions it is well settled in West Virginia that a lease of this character is not a grant of property in the oil or in the land, but merely a grant of property in the oil or in the land, but merely a grant of possession for the purpose of searching for and procuring oil. The title is inchoate, and for the purpose of exploration only until the oil is found. If it is not found, no estate vests in the lessee; and, where the sole compensation to the landlord is a share of what is produced, there is always an implied covenant for diligent search and operation. There is, perhaps, no other business in which prompt performance is so essential to the rights of the parties, or delays so likely to prove injurious,-- no other class of contracts in which time is so much of the essence. There is no other branch of mining where greater damage is done by delay. Coal and precious metals lie either in horizontal veins or in pockets. They remain where they are until removed. Oil and gas are the most uncertain, fluctuating, volatile, and fugitive of all mining properties. They lie far below the surface, beyond the control of human will, and beyond the reach of any legal process, whence they may flow unrestrained if the owner of adjoining land bores a well down to the strata which holds them; and there is no law which can provide adequate, or indeed any, compensation for such results. This is a matter of common knowledge, and 'courts will generally take notice of whatever ought to be generally known within the limits of their jurisdiction. ' Greenl. Ev. Sec. 6. It furnished the ground upon which the plaintiff in this case asks the court, through a receiver, to bore the well which the lessee was required to bore within 90 days from the date of execution of the instrument under which he claims. The only consideration which moved the lessor to grant the lease was the prospective royalties from oil and gas, which could come only if the lessee complied with the terms of this proviso that required the boring of a well; for, while the sum of one dollar is technically a valuable, it is only a nominal, consideration. If the contention of the plaintiff is correct, the lessee, Hodges, or his assigns, could have waited the full term of five years without expending one dollar or moving a hand for the development of the leased property, meantime tying the hands of the owner of the land, forbidding him to make arrangement with any other persons for the explorations which the lessee undertook to make, and perhaps suffering irreparable injury from the drainage of his oil and gas. This is the contract which a court of equity is asked to enforce. It is a short view of the range of equitable principles. There are not precise technical words which distinguish conditions precedent or subsequent. Whether they are one or the other is a matter of construction, to be solved by ascertaining the intention of the party creating the estate. They are not determined merely by the structure of the instrument, or the arrangement of the covenants. Where mutual covenants go to the whole consideration on both sides, they are mutual conditions,-- the one precedent to the other. 4 Kent, Comm. 144. Where the undertaking on one side is, in terms, a condition to the stipulation on the other (that is, where the contract provides for the performance of some act or the happening of some event, and the obligations of the contract are made to depend on such performance or happening), the conditions are conditions precedent. The reason and the sense of the contemplated transaction as it must have been understood by the parties, and is to be collected from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 cases
  • Wilmore Coal Co. v. Brown
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • September 29, 1906
    ... ... v. Phila. Co., 193 Pa. 451, 44 A. 555, 74 Am.St.Rep ... 696; Price v. Nicholas, 4 Hughes, 616, Fed. Cas. No ... 11,415; Huggins v. Daley, 99 F. 606, 40 C.C.A. 12, ... 48 L.R.A. 320; Sharp v. Behr (C.C.) 136 F. 795; ... Brewster v. Lanyon Zinc Co. (C.C.A.) 140 F. 801; ... ...
  • Lindlay v. Raydure
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • February 3, 1917
    ...S.E. 120; Eclipse Oil Co. v. South Penn Co., 47 W.Va. 84, 34 S.E. 923; Trees v. Eclipse Oil Co., 47 W.Va. 107, 34 S.E. 933; Huggins v. Daley, 99 F. 606, 40 C.C.A. 12; Reese v. Zinn (C.C.) 103 F. 97; Federal Oil v. Western Oil Co. (C.C.) 112 F. 373; Federal Oil Co. v. Western Oil Co., 121 F.......
  • Keller v. Model Coal Co., 10832
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1957
    ...so cited being Bluestone Coal Co. v. Bell, 38 W.Va. 297, 18 S.E. 493; Starn v. Huffman, 62 W.Va. 422, 59 S.E. 179; Huggins v. Daley, 4 Cir., 99 F. 606, 48 L.R.A. 320; Clintwood Coal Corporation v. Turner, 133 Va. 464, 114 S.E. The doctrine of abandonment was recognized and discussed in Mart......
  • Southern Surety Co. v. MacMillan Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • May 23, 1932
    ...by the other." New Orleans v. Texas & Pac. Ry., 171 U. S. 312, 334, 18 S. Ct. 875, 883, 43 L. Ed. 178. In Huggins v. Daley (C. C. A. 4) 99 F. 606, 608, 48 L. R. A. 320, the question was "whether the proviso in the Hodges lease constituted a condition precedent." It was held that it did, but......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT