Ohio Fuel Oil Co. v. Burdett

• Decision Date: 07 October 1913
• Citation: 79 S.E. 667,72 W.Va. 803
• Parties: OHIO FUEL OIL CO. v. BURDETT, Judge, et al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

79 S.E. 667

72 W.Va. 803

OHIO FUEL OIL CO. v. BURDETT, Judge, et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

October 7, 1913

Submitted March 6, 1912.

Syllabus by the Court.

When a tract of land, containing large and valuable deposits of oil and gas, as indicated by operations upon adjacent land, is the subject-matter of a suit in partition, and there is imminent danger of loss to the cotenants by drainage through the operation of wells on adjacent land, and the parties interested therein and owners in fee simple are unable to agree upon some plan for development of the land for its oil and gas, or some of these parties refuse to join in such measures, the court in which the suit is pending may appoint a receiver to produce the oil and gas as a measure of preservation.

Application for writ of prohibition by the Ohio Fuel Oil Company against Samuel C. Burdett, Judge, etc., and others.Prohibition refused.

Brown Jackson & Knight, Thomas P. Ryan, and E. M. Burdette, all of Charleston, for petitioner.

Geo. E Price, Berkeley Minor, Jr., Cato & Bledsoe, and A. S Alexander, all of Charleston, for respondents.

POFFENBARGER P.

Questioning the jurisdiction of a court of equity to appoint a receiver to produce oil and gas from a tract of land owned in undivided interests by numerous persons and under lease for oil and gas purposes to parties who are unable to agree upon a plan of operation for their mutual interests, as a means of preserving the oil and gas from loss or waste by drainage through operations on adjacent premises, the relator filed its petition for a writ of prohibition, upon which a rule was issued, and the case made up for hearing on the merits.

The nature of the cause in which the receiver was appointed and the status thereof at the time of the appointment, together with all the facts involved and the relation of the parties are very clearly and succinctly stated in the answer of the respondent, as follows: "The said suit was brought for the purpose of compelling a partition of a small tract of land containing about 25 acres, lying in Kanawha county, W. Va., alleged to be owned by a large number of persons in different interests.And by section 1 of chapter 79 of the Code of West Virginia, the circuit court of the county wherein is the estate is given jurisdiction of such suit.This defendant, as judge of the said circuit court, was convinced from the pleadings and affidavits filed in said cause that said tract of land has within it a large quantity of petroleum oil and gas, and that by reason of wells already drilled by the plaintiff in this cause--the defendant in said chancery cause--on adjacent lands, near the lines of this tract, and by the William Seymour Edwards Oil Company, and by other wells which are being drilled and are located very close to the...