Ohio Oil Co. v. Griest

• Decision Date: 25 November 1902
• Citation: Ohio Oil Co. v. Griest, 30 Ind.App. 84, 65 N.E. 534 (Ind. App. 1902)
• Parties: OHIO OIL CO. v. GRIEST.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

30 Ind.App. 84

65 N.E. 534

OHIO OIL CO.

v.GRIEST.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

Nov. 25, 1902.

Appeal from circuit court, Adams county; D. D. Heller, Judge.

Action by Reuben Griest against the Ohio Oil Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

O. H. Adair and John F. LaFollette, for appellant. Corwin & Moran and J. F. Denney, for appellee.

HENLEY, J.

This was an action for damages to real estate growing out of the breach of a contract. The facts were as follows: In April, 1893, one Jasper N. Hiatt was the owner and in possession of the real estate affected. On the 6th day of May, 1893, the sheriff of Jay county, by virtue of a decree issued to him by the clerk of the Jay circuit court, sold the real estate at sheriff's sale to appellee, who took a certificate of purchase therefor. On the 18th day of August, 1893, and while the certificate of sale was held by appellee, the said Hiatt leased the real estate to one Huffman, trustee, for the purpose of having it drilled for oil and gas. In September, 1893, the said Huffman drilled and completed a gas well thereon. On the 24th day of February, 1894, Huffman sold and assigned said lease, well, and fixtures to appellant. On the 3d day of March, 1894, appellee leased the same land to Huffman for the purpose of having it drilled for gas and oil, and said Huffman, on the 28th day of March, 1894, sold and assigned the lease from appellee to appellant. Jasper N. Hiatt failed to redeem the real estate from sheriff's sale, and on the 8th day of May, 1894, appellee received a sheriff's deed for the land. The well on the land produced gas in marketable quantities for three or four years, and appellee paid the rental as stipulated in the lease, and was furnished with gas for use in his dwelling on the land. After a few years the flow of gas from the well was so reduced in quantity that it became unprofitable to convey it from the premises, whereupon appellant entered upon the premises, and removed the drive pipe, casing, tubing, and other fixtures connected with the operation of the well. The lease from Hiatt and the lease from appellee to Huffman both contained the following provision: “The lessee to have the right to remove any buildings, machinery, or fixtures placed on said premises by them at any time, either before or after the limitation of this lease.” Also the following provision: “If lessee, at its option, abandons well on said premises furnishing gas sufficient for said residence, said well shall be left in such condition as to be used by said first party, at his (said first party's) expense.” It is averred in the complaint that appellee was the owner of a certain tract of land; that there was a gas well on said land, which was producing sufficient gas for fuel and light for his said dwelling house thereon; that said well consisted of a shaft drilled in the earth, in which was placed drive pipe, casing, and tubing through which the gas flowed to the surface of the ground, and thence into pipes for distribution. The appellant wrongfully removed the drive pipe, casing, and tubing from the said well, thereby destroying it, and cutting off the flow of the gas, and by reason thereof damaging the said real estate to the sum of $1,500. Appellant filed a plea in abatement, to which a demurrer was sustained. An answer was filed, consisting of five paragraphs, the first paragraph being a general denial. Appellee's demurrer was sustained to the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of answer, and overruled as to the fifth....