Mt. Sterling Oil & Gas Co. v. Ratliff
Decision Date | 30 October 1907 |
Citation | 104 S.W. 993,127 Ky. 1 |
Parties | MT. STERLING OIL & GAS CO. v. RATLIFF, SHERIFF. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bath County.
"To be officially reported."
Action by the Mt. Sterling Oil & Gas Company against C. S. Ratliff sheriff of Bath county, to enjoin the collection of certain taxes. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Robt. H. Winn, for appellant.
J. J Nesbitt, for appellee.
Appellant an Indiana corporation, owned prior to September 1, 1905 certain oil leaseholds in Bath and other counties of Kentucky, which it on that date sold and assigned to Guffey and Galey, Pennsylvania oil men, for a certain consideration based upon a test of production, and then paid, and an additional consideration expressed in the following clause of the written contract between the parties, viz.: The New Domain Oil & Gas Company subsequently became assignee of the rights of Guffey and Galey under the contract in question. In January, 1906, the board of supervisors of Bath county assessed for taxation as of September 1, 1905, in the name of appellant as owner, its interest in the Bath county oil leaseholds reserved in the assignment to Guffey and Galey, styling it upon the assessor's book, "Present value of annuities and royalties," and fixed the value thereof at $20,000, the tax upon which went into the hands of appellee as sheriff of Bath county for collection. The payment of this tax was demanded by the sheriff of appellant, who refused to pay it, and immediately thereafter it brought this action in the Bath circuit court against that officer to enjoin its collection. The petition rests appellant's claim to the relief asked on two grounds: (1) That a right to receive one-sixteenth of the oil produced from a well, the owner of the right having parted with his leasehold and not being engaged in the production of the oil, is an intangible personal asset, the situs whereof for taxation follows the domicile of the owner; (2) that the assessment by the board of supervisors, having been made without notice to appellant, is void.
The first contention is manifestly unsound. Whether the right reserved to appellant by the lease contract to one-sixteenth of the oil produced by its assignee be called personal property, a chattel real, incorporeal hereditament, or privilege, it is property and as such subject to taxation under section 4039, Ky. St. 1903, which provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Elkhorn Piney Coal Min. Co.
... ... of former decisions upon the general subject-matter of the ... In ... Mount Sterling Oil & Gas Company v. Ratliff, 127 Ky. 1, ... 104 S.W. 993, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 1229, it was held that the ... reservation of a royalty in oil and gas ... ...
-
Com. v. Elkhorn Piney Coal Mining Co.
...will be aided by a survey of former decisions upon the general subject-matter of the dispute. In Mount Sterling Oil & Gas Company v. Ratliff, 127 Ky. 1, 104 S.W. 993, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 1229, it was held that the reservation of a royalty in oil and gas leases assigned to another, consisting of......
-
Raydure v. Board of Sup'rs of Estill County
... ... has substantial value and is the subject of frequent ... To the ... same effect is Mt. Sterling Oil & Gas Co. v. Ratliff, ... Sheriff, 127 Ky. 1, 104 S.W. 993, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 1229 ... We find ... no reason for departing ... ...
-
Forbes v. Mid-Northern Oil Co.
... ... place fixed for payment of the royalty is important." ... See, also, Royal Mineral Ass'n v. Lord (D. C.) ... 13 F. (2d) 227; Mt. Sterling Oil & Gas Co. v ... Ratliff, 127 Ky. 1, 104 S.W. 993; Shaffer v ... Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 40 S.Ct. 221, 64 L.Ed. 445; ... United States v ... ...