ILO Oil Co. v. Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 10 June 1910
• Docket Number: No. 21,301.,21,301.
• Citation: 92 N.E. 1,174 Ind. 635
• Parties: ILO OIL CO. v. INDIANA NATURAL GAS & OIL CO.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

174 Ind. 635

92 N.E. 1

ILO OIL CO.

v.INDIANA NATURAL GAS & OIL CO.

No. 21,301.¹

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 10, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Delaware County; Jos. G. Leffler, Judge.

Action by the Ilo Oil Company against the Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A. L. Weil, C. M. Thorp, Ralph S. Gregory, and Walter J. Lotz, for appellant. Miller, Shirley & Miller and W. O. Johnson, for appellee.

MONKS, C. J.

Appellant brought this suit to enjoin appellee from using devices for pumping and from employing any other artificial power of appliance for the purpose of having the effect of increasing the natural flow of natural gas and oil from wells of appellee. It is alleged in the amended complaint that appellee “has and is by compressors, pumps, suction lines, and stations producing a vacuum and suction upon the gas and oil, sand, and rock underlying its leases and leases of the appellee and surrounding territory, and thereby it has been sucking the oil and gas away from appellant's property and destroying its wells and leases, and that appellant threatens to continue and will continue such application unless enjoined,” etc. Prayer for an injunction. Appellee filed an answer in two paragraphs, the first paragraph was a general denial, the second set up in substance that appellant was guilty of the same acts complained of in its complaint, but in a lesser degree. The court at the request of both parties made a special finding of facts, and stated conclusions of law thereon. The conclusions of law stated by the court were: (1) The law is with the defendant, and the plaintiff is entitled to take nothing by its complaint herein; (2) that the defendant is entitled to recover its costs in this action laid out and expended. Over a motion for a new trial judgment was rendered in favor of appellee. The errors assigned by appellant call in question each conclusion of law and the action of the court in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.

Appellee insists that even if it might be enjoined from increasing the natural flow of gas and oil by pumping or other artificial means under the rule declared in Manufacturing, etc., Co. v. Indiana, etc., Co., 155 Ind. 461, 57 N. E. 912, 50 L. R. A. 768, that appellant is not in a position to obtain such relief because the court found that it was also guilty of the same acts in connection with the matter in controversy. The court, in its special finding, found facts which show that appellant was guilty of the same acts in a lesser degree (in connection with the same matter) which it seeks to enjoin appellee from doing. This finding of the court is challenged by appellant in its motion for a new trial, on the ground that it is not sustained by sufficient evidence. There is, however, evidence to support this finding, and it is well settled that the finding made by a trial court as to questions of fact will not be disturbed when there is evidence to support such finding. Ewbank's Manual of Prac. § 128; Mead v. Burk, 156 Ind. 577, 60 N. E. 338, and cases cited; Tappen v. Eshelman, 164 Ind. 338, 73 N. E. 688;Thompson v. Beatty, 171 Ind. 579, 86 N. E. 961, and cases cited; Parkison v. Thompson, 164 Ind. 609, 73 N. E. 109;Burk v. Matthews Glass Co., 40 Ind. App. 81, 81 N. E. 88;Ellison v. Flint, 43 Ind. App. 276, 87 N. E. 38;Roberts v. Koss, 32 Ind. App. 510, 70 N. E. 185.

As appellant was guilty, although in a lesser degree, of the same acts charged against appellee the court will leave the parties where it finds them, for the reason that he who seeks equity must do equity and must come into court with clean hands. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Town of Crothersville, 159 Ind. 330, 332, 337, 64 N. E. 914, and cases cited; Bunch v. Bunch, 26 Ind. 400, 405, 406;McAllister v. Henderson, 134 Ind. 453, 34 N. E. 221;A. N. Chamberlain Medicine Co. v. H. A. Chamberlain, etc., Co., 43 Ind. App. 213, 86 N. E. 1025, and cases cited; Cassady v. Cavenor, 37 Iowa, 300;Brutsche v. Bowers, 122 Iowa, 226, 97 N. W. 1076;Medford v. Levy, 31 W....