163 Ind. 190 | Ind. | 1904
This is a suit by the appellant against the appellees, the Crystal Window Glass Company and Jones and wife, for an injunction to prevent the Crystal Window Glass Company from entering upon the lands described in the complaint and sinking gas-wells and conveying the gas therefrom. Issues were formed, and there was a finding and judgment for the appellees.
The error assigned is the refusal of the court to grant a new trial upon the motion of the appellant.
The complaint was in two paragraphs, which were substantially alike, the first referring to the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section twenty-one, township twenty-two, range eight east, containing forty acres; and the second to another forty-acre tract adjoining that first described. The material facts alleged in the complaint were that on April 27, 1899, the appellant was a corporation organized under the laws of this State fo^ the purpose of leasing lands, acquiring the right to drill for natural gas, transporting such gas to Indianapolis, and selling the same at that city; that J ones was the owner of the lands mentioned in the complaint, and that on said day he and his wife entered into a contract in writing with the appellant, whereby they conveyed to appellant the exclusive right to drill for gas and petroleum upon said southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said section twenty-one, and to transport the same therefrom, together with certain other rights and privileges necessary to the full enjoyment of the said agreement ; that at the time the said contract was made, and as a part of the same transaction, Jones and wife executed another lease upon the other forty .acres of the farm owned by
The contract executed by Jones and wife and the appellant, referred to in the complaint, is substantially the same as the lease and agreement in Consumers Gas Trust Co. v. Littler (1904), 162 Ind. 320, and the evidence in this case is very much the same as in that. On the authority of that case, and for the reasons there stated, we hold that the appellees Jones and Jones could not terminate the contract abruptly without notice to the appellant by a refusal to accept the rent, or compensation provided for by the contract. Such refusal to accept the rent can be construed only as an .indication that the owners of the land objected to further delay on the part of the appellant in beginning operations under the contract, and that it must proceed to drill for gas or oil within a reasonable time after such refusal.
Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain the motion for a new trial, and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.