Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 8
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
DECISIONS ON MINES AND MINING.
oil and gas in and under his land he does not grant more than the
right to reduce to ownership such oil and gas that may be obtained
by operating on the land, whereby these substances that may be
in and under the lands of other surface proprietors may come into
the rightful ownership of the grantee as his personal property. A
corporeal interest in oil and gas, due to their peculiar nature, can not
be acquired without their reduction to personal property, but the
exclusive and assignable right to do this, with the accompanying
rights necessary to such accomplishment, constitutes a subsisting,
exclusive, assignable, irrevocable right that accrues upon the execu-
tion of a written instrument of conveyance and before any action
has been taken thereunder. Such a grant of right is in the nature
of an incorporeal hereditament and is not a lease properly so called
but is a conveyance of an interest in land within the meaning of
Shaffer v. Marks, 241 Fed. 139, p. 142.
OPERATION OF WELLS-INJUNCTION REFUSED.
In a suit by the United States to recover oil lands on which there
had been no discovery at the time'of a withdrawal order, but where
discovery was made and wells drilled after and in violation of the
President's withdrawal proclamation, a court will take judicial
notice of the fact that upon the sinking of a well into the oil sands
and the production of oil therefrom a stoppage of the operations of
the well will produce irreparable as well as incalculable injury to
the property; and the court will not even in the face of waste being
committed enjoin the operations of a well, as this would be to the
damage of both parties and to the benefit of neither, and especially
where the operating company is financially able to respond in damages
and is willing to furnish a bond to pay any judgment recovered
against it. Under such circumstances the court will not appoint a
receiver pendente lite to operate and control the oil property upon
which the wells have been sunk by the operating company. The
Government in withdrawal cases possesses no higher or different right
than private individuals seeking similar relief would possess.
United States v. Dominion Oil Co., 241 Fed. 425, p. 426.
SALE OF OIL-INJUNCTION.
An oil producer entered into an 'agreement with a pipe-line com-
pany to sell and deliver to it at a specified amount per barrel all of
the oil produced and saved by the seller from a certain numbered
well. The pipe-line company as such purchaser can not enjoin the
seller from selling the oil from such well to another person, nor is it en-
titled to a mandatory injunction compelling the seller to deliver to
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Thompson, Joseph Wesley. Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917, report, December 1917; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38745/m1/22/: accessed March 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.