Brown v. Spilman

155 U.S. 665, 15 S. Ct. 245, 39 L. Ed. 304, 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2114
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 14, 1895
Docket92
StatusPublished
Cited by69 cases

This text of 155 U.S. 665 (Brown v. Spilman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. Spilman, 155 U.S. 665, 15 S. Ct. 245, 39 L. Ed. 304, 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2114 (1895).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Shiras,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

Whatever rights Spilman and Chancellor have in the ten acres in controversy, they hold subject to the provisions of the prior lease to Brown, of which, as a recorded instrument, they took with notice, which is referred to as an existing lease, in the deed to them from Taylor, and which they attach as an exhibit to their bill.

In order to reach an intelligible construction of the lease it will be necessary to have before' us its entire language, as follows:

“This lease made this —day of July, a.d. 1889, by and between John F. Taylor, of the county of Pleasants, and State of West Yirginia, of the first party and Joseph S. Brown, of Pittsburgh, Pa., of the second part, witnesseth:

*668 “ That the said party of the first part, in consideration of fifteen dollars in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and the stipulations, rents, and covenants hereinafter contained, on the part of said party of the second part, to be paid,' kept, and performed, hath granted, demised, and let nnto the said party of the second part, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, for the sole and only purpose of boring, mining, and excavating for petroleum or carbon oil and gas, and piping of oil and gas over all of that certain tract of land situate in Grant township, Pleasants. County, and State of West Virginia, and bounded and described as follows, to wit: On the north by lands of Mrs. Jones and the Ohio River, south by lands of A. Smith, west by county road, east by Mrs: Jones, containing forty acres, more or less, excepting reserved therefrom ten acres, beginning at the' railroad and running thence to the county road, thence south with said county road to A. Smith’s line, thence with said Smith’s line to a line to be drawn from the railroad to meet it,.upon which no wells shall be drilled without the consent of the party of the first part. To have and to hold said premises peaceably and quietly, for the said purposes only, for, during, and until the full term of two years next ensuing the date and year above written, or so long thereafter as oil or gas shall continue to be found thereon in paying quantities. The said party of the second part hereby covenants, in consideration of the said grant and demise, to deliver unto the said party of the first part, his heirs and assigns, the full, equal one-éighth part of the petroleum or carbon oil discovered, excavated, mined, pumped, and raised on the premises herein leased, as produced in the crude state, to be delivered in pipe lines at the wells, and in case of a gas well being struck and utilized, then in lieu of a royalty, the party of the first part agrees to accept a yearly rental of two hundred dollars for each and every well drilled on above-described premises. All pipe lines shall be laid alfSng the fenced, or buried two feet under ground. The said party of the first part to fully use and enjoy the said premises for the purpose of tillage, except such parts as may be necessary for said mining purposes, and a right of *669 way to or from the place or places of said mining or excavating. The said party of. the first part hereby grants to the party of the second part the right to remove any machinery, buildings, or fixtures, placed on said premises by the said party of the second part. The party of the second part further to have the privilege of using sufficient water from the premises .herein leased for the prosecution of said business. The party of the second part agrees to, and will, within one month from this date, commence a test well for gas and oil in this vicinity, and complete the same within two months thereafter, unavoidable accidents and delays excepted.. Said second party is to commence and drill a well on the within-described lands within nine months after the completion of said test well, and to prosecute said drilling with reasonable diligence, to its completion ; he is also to pay to first party a monthly rental of ten dollars in advance, until said drilling one well is completed ; the party of the second part is to keep up all fences, and to pay any damage done by leaving said fences down by said second party on his premises. A failure of the party of the second part to make said payments will render this lease ' null and void, not binding on either party. The party of the second part is only to have the right to assign this lease to the ■ company of which he is a member and to no one else without the óonsent of the first party.

“In witness whereof the said parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written.”

It may be' well to make some preliminary observations on the subject-matter of this contract, and thus facilitate the task of its construction.

The subject of the grant was not the land, certainly not the surface. All of that except the portions actually necessary for operating purposes and the easement of'ingress and egress, was expressly reserved to Taylor. The real subject of the grant •was the gas and oil. contained in or obtainable through the land, or rather the right to take possession of the gas and oil by mining and boring for the same.

Petroleum gas and oil are substances of a peculiar character, and decisions in ordinary cases of mining, for coal and other *670 •minerals which have a fixed situs, cannot be applied to contracts, concerning them -without some qualifications. They belong to the owner of the land, and are part of it, so long as they are on it or in it, or subject to his control, but when they escape and go into other land, or come under another’s control, the title of the former owner is gone. If an adjoining owner drills his own land and taps a deposit of oil or gas, extending under his neighbor’s field, so that it comes into his well, it becomes his property. Brown v. Vandergrift, 80 Penn. St. 142, 147; Westmoreland Nat. Gas Co.’s Appeal, 25 Weekly Notes of Cases, (Penn.,) 103.

To operate the machinery used in boring' an oil well it is necessary to erect a derrick, which is a structure of considerable height, and occupies a large space of ground. This derrick is also used, if oil be found, in connection with the pumping machinery. A' very strong odor proceeds from a gas or oil well, and the noise of a well in operation can be heard for a long distance. These are some of the reasons why it is usual for farmers, when they grant the right to drill for oil and gas, to stipulate that wells shall not be drilled in close proximity to their dwelling-houses.

When oil or gas is found in paying quantities it is not usual to consume it or reduce it to use at the wells, but it is conducted in iron pipes to large tanks or reservoirs, whence it is distributed by other pipes to the places of consumption, often many miles distant;

These are matters within the common experience or knowledge of all men living in those portions of the country where oil and gas are produced, and courts will take notice of whatever ought to be generally known within the limits of their jurisdiction- 1 Greenl. Ev. § 6.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Finite Resources, Ltd. v. DTE Methane Resources, LLC
44 F.4th 680 (Seventh Circuit, 2022)
EQT Production Company v. Margot Beth Crowder
828 S.E.2d 800 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2019)
Briggs v. Sw. Energy Prod. Co.
184 A.3d 153 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2018)
T D X Energy, L.L.C. v. Chesapeake Operating, Inc.
857 F.3d 253 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)
Gawenis v. Arkansas Oil & Gas Commission
2015 Ark. 238 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2015)
Cowling v. Board of Oil, Gas & Mining
830 P.2d 220 (Utah Supreme Court, 1991)
Trent v. Energy Development Corp.
902 F.2d 1143 (Fourth Circuit, 1990)
Saxton v. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Co.
428 F. Supp. 1047 (C.D. California, 1977)
J. M. Young v. Ethyl Corporation
521 F.2d 771 (Eighth Circuit, 1975)
Hein v. Shell Oil Co.
42 N.E.2d 949 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1942)
Gulf Production Co. v. Continental Oil Co.
164 S.W.2d 488 (Texas Supreme Court, 1942)
Republic Supply Co. v. Clark
88 F.2d 29 (Eighth Circuit, 1937)
Hammonds v. Central Kentucky Natural Gas Co.
75 S.W.2d 204 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1934)
Chicago, M., St. P. &. P. R. v. Hedges
5 F. Supp. 752 (W.D. Washington, 1933)
In Re Lathrap
61 F.2d 37 (Ninth Circuit, 1932)
Greeson v. Imperial Irr. Dist.
59 F.2d 529 (Ninth Circuit, 1932)
People v. Associated Oil Co.
294 P. 717 (California Supreme Court, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 U.S. 665, 15 S. Ct. 245, 39 L. Ed. 304, 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-spilman-scotus-1895.