Watford Oil & Gas Co. v. Shipman

• Decision Date: 20 February 1908
• Citation: 233 Ill. 9,84 N.E. 53
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: WATFORD OIL & GAS CO. v. SHIPMAN et al.

233 Ill. 9

84 N.E. 53

WATFORD OIL & GAS CO.

v.SHIPMAN et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 20, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Crawford County; E. E. Newlin, Judge.

Action by the Watford Oil & Gas Company against Nancy E. Shipman and others.From a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity, complainant appeals.Affirmed.Eagleton, Baker & Wesner and George O. Dix, for appellant.

Parker & Newlin and Jay A. Hindman, for appellees.

The Watford Oil & Gas Company filed its bill in chancery against Nancy E. Shipman and others in the circuit court of Crawford county praying for an injunction and for partition.A demurrer was sustained to the bill; and the complainant electing to stand by its bill, a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity was entered, from which the complainant below prosecutes this appeal.

From the averments of the bill it appears that the lands in question were owned by Nancy E. Shipman, Lewis Hicks, Betta Douglas, and William Hicks, as tenants in common, in the following proportions: Nancy E. Shipman one-tenth, and the other three cotenants three-tenths each; Nancy E. Shipman also holding a life estate in the premises.On February 5, 1906, Nancy E. Shipman and her husband executed an instrument called an ‘oil lease,’ by which the whole of the premises were granted, demised, and let to one D. R. Guncheon, trustee, for the purpose of drilling and operating for oil and gas, laying pipe lines, building tanks, stations, and other structures thereon to take care of the products.It was stipulated that the lease should remain in force for the term of one year from its date, and as long thereafter as the premises should be operated for the purpose of producing oil or gas, or so long as oil or gas was produced in paying quantities.The consideration for said lease was one dollar and one-eighth part of all the oil produced and saved from these premises, and a rental of $200 per year for each gas well drilled on the premises, the product from which is marketed and used.The lease provided that it was to be void, unless a well shall be commenced on the premises within 45 days of the date thereof, or unless the lessee shall pay at the rate of 25 cents per acre, quarterly, for each additional three months such completion is delayed after the expiration of the 45 days.The lease provided also that the lessee or his successors or assigns should have the right, upon payment of one dollar, to surrender the lease for cancellation, after which all payments and liabilities thereafter to accrue should cease and determine, and the lease become absolutely null and void.The lease contained other provisions which we do not regard as material to an understanding of the questions arising in the case.

The lease was duly recorded, and by successive assignments the leasehold passed to appellant.It appears that the lessee did not begin the boring of a well within 45 days of the date of the lease, but that under the terms of the lease $40 was paid to and accepted by Nancy E. Shipman on the 22d day of March, 1906, being rentals in advance at 25 cents per acre for the three months next ensuing thereafter.It is averred in the bill that before the expiration of the quarter for which the rentals were paid the lessee tendered Nancy E. Shipman $40 for the quarter commencing June 22, 1906, which was refused by her.The bill alleges that thereafter the amount of money due under the lease was deposited in a bank to the credit of Nancy E. Shipman.The bill avers, in general terms, that all of the conditions of the lease have been fully performed and complied with by the lessee.It is charged in the bill that Nancy E. Shipman and all of the other cotenants have entered into another agreement with Lemuel Neely, trustee, by which they are attempting to defeat and destroy the rights of the appellant under its said lease, and that Lemuel Neely has employed the St. Mary's Drilling Company and Dick Clover, and that Clover and the drilling company, and other of then agents and employés, have entered upon and taken possession of a portion of said demised premises, and are digging up the ground, drilling and prospecting for oil and gas on said premises, and are threatening to take the oil and gas under the surface of said land and convert the same to their own use, which, it is charged, is waste, and will result in irreparable injury to the leasehold estate belonging to the appellant.

The prayer of the bill is for an injunction to prevent the acts of alleged waste, and also for a division and a partition of the premises between Nancy E. Shipman and the other cotenants, and that the interest of Nancy E. Shipman may be designated and set off to her, and that appellant be permitted, by the decree of the court, to go upon such portion of said premises as may be set off to the said Nancy E. Shipman and to develop the same for oil and gas under the terms of said lease.

VICKERS, J.(after stating the facts as above).

Appellant had no right to a compulsory partition either of the oil and gas, considered separately from the land, or of the land itself.The lease upon...