Kier v. Peterson
| Decision Date | 22 March 1862 |
| Citation | 41 Pa. 357 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
| Parties | Kier <I>versus</I> Peterson. |
2. That the lessor could not maintain this action without proof that he had a right of property in the oil at the time of the conversion, to wit, when it was intercepted by the tenant. But as its origin and source were unknown, it was, like the elements, only susceptible of a qualified ownership: 1 Bl. Com. 317; Acton v. Blundell, 12 M. & W. 324; Tyler v. Wilkinson, 4 Mason's A. R. 401.
He must also have had the right of possession at the time: 2 Saunders on Pl. & Ev. 1138. The conversion, which took place the instant the lessee assumed ownership of the oil, took place on the demised premises on which the lessor could not enter to take possession of the oil without being guilty of trespass.
D. W. & A. S. Bell, for defendant in error, insisted that the rights and privileges ordinarily incident to a tenancy for life, were, in this case, modified and restricted by the terms of the lease or agreement between the parties, which included nothing more than the use of the land leased for the manufacture of salt, for certain rents therein mentioned. The doctrine of waste is not applicable to this case: the question simply is, whose oil is this which comes up with the salt water, for which the land was leased? It belongs to the owner of the reversion, no matter what its value may be, or what may be done with it, if not granted in express terms to the lessee.
2. The source of the oil may be unknown, but as it does not flow, but is a permanent matter found upon the lessor's land, and only comes out of it when dug for, the right of property is in the owner of the reversion.
As to his right of possession, it can be exercised anywhere and at any time, if the rights of the lessee are not interfered with. The lessee was, perhaps, not bound to preserve this oil, but, having done so, it belongs to lessor, and is then, as severed from the freehold, personal property, and the action is well brought: Mather v. Ministers of Trinity Church, 3 S. & R. 511; Shult v. Barker, 12 S. & R. 273.
The opinion of the court was delivered, March 22d 1862, by READ, J.
On October 30th 1837, Lewis Peterson entered into articles of agreement with Thomas Kier and Samuel M. Kier, by which he leased to them and their assigns a certain lot or piece of ground owned by him in the county of Allegheny, and adjoining the Pennsylvania Canal, with the privilege on the said premises to bore salt-wells and erect all manner of buildings necessary or useful in the prosecution of the manufacture of salt; and to use all coal in the hill in the rear of the said premises within the boundary lines of said Peterson's land that may be necessary and proper to the successful prosecution of said manufacture, together with the right of taking from the before-described premises timber and stone to erect and keep in repair the establishment therein contemplated. It was also agreed that the said Peterson should be at liberty to lay a railroad near Humes' line, from the coal-bank on the hill to the canal, provided it does not interfere with the interests of lessees in the conduct of their works and improvements. It was further agreed that the lease should endure as long as the salt-wells therein contemplated to be established should be carried on by the said Thomas Kier and Samuel M. Kier, the survivor of them or by their assigns. Then followed a proviso, "that if the said parties of the second part (the Kiers) shall let the salt-wells erected on said premises remain idle or out of use for three continuous years, then the said Peterson shall be at liberty to enter upon possession of said premises as if the lease had never been entered into." Should the said parties of the second part be induced to abandon their works and improvements at any time, they shall be at liberty to remove from the premises all machinery and fixtures, except houses and buildings, connected with the manufacture of salt; and it was further agreed that the salt-wells about to be established shall be in operation within one year from the date of this article, and if delayed two years from the date of this article, said Peterson to take possession as before described.
In consideration of which the said Thomas Kier and Samuel M. Kier agree to pay unto the said Lewis Peterson the one-twelfth barrel of all the salt made on the said premises, to be delivered to the said Lewis Peterson, or his authorized agent, at the works on the said premises, on the first days of January, April, July, and October in each and every year during the continuance of this lease.
It will therefore be perceived that this instrument gave a life estate to the Kiers and the survivor, to endure as long as the salt-wells shall be carried on by them or their assigns, with two conditions, the first of which, as to putting the salt-wells in operation, has been fulfilled, and has therefore no longer any existence, and the second, as to letting the salt-wells remain idle or out of use for three continuous years, has never been broken. In fact it is conceded that all the covenants and agreements of the lessees have been strictly complied with, including the payment of the stipulated rent.
The lessees, therefore, had a freehold estate for life in these premises on condition, without any other restriction or limitation except what is expressly stated on the face of the articles of agreement. Subject only to this, these lessees were tenants for life of this property, and with all the rights belonging to such an estate.
The defendants went into possession of the demised premises, sunk a well in 1839, erected works, and commenced and continued the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lone Star Gas Co. v. Murchison
...the rule that '* * * oil and gas are minerals, though not commonly spoken of as such, and while in place are part of the land' (Kier v. Peterson, 41 Pa. 357, 362 * * *); * * 'Once severed from the realty, however, gas and oil, like other minerals, become personal property. '* * * title to n......
-
NCNB Texas Nat. Bank, N.A. v. West
..."Thus, as a general rule, subterranean gas is owned by whoever has title to the property in which the gas is resting. Cf. Kier v. Peterson, 41 Pa. 357 (1862) (owner of subterranean salt entitled to oil commingled with it). But cf. Erwin's Appeal, 7 Sad. 477, 12 A. 149 (Pa.1887). When a land......
-
United States Steel Corp. v. Hoge
... ... Thus, as a ... general rule, subterranean gas is owned by whoever has title ... to the property in which the gas is resting. Cf. Kier v ... Peterson, 41 Pa. 357 (1862) (owner of subterranean salt ... entitled to oil commingled with it). But cf. Erwin's ... Appeal, 7 Sad. 477, ... ...
-
Wilson v. A. Cook Sons Co.
... ... many times decided that oil and gas are minerals, though not ... commonly spoken of as such, and while in place are "part ... of the land": Kier v. Peterson, 41 Pa. 357, ... 362; Funk v. Haldeman, 53 Pa. 229, 249; ... Stoughton's App., 88 Pa. 198, 201; Marshall v ... Mellon, 179 Pa. 371, ... ...
-
The rule of capture - an oil and gas perspective.
...part of the realty. See, e.g., Hail v. Reed, 54 Ky. (1 B. Mon.) 479, 479 (1854). (26) Wood County Petroleum Co., 28 W.Va. at 217-20. (27) 41 Pa. 357 (28) Id. at 363. (29) 19 S.E. 436, 441-42 (W. Va. 1894) (stating that natural gas in the ground is subject to ownership by the owner of the su......