Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1896–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Xandergreen2 sentences1994In Wilson, 182 W.Va. at 344 , 387 S.E.2d at 811 , we noted that although “the courts’ will normally honor the letter of the lease ... [, i]n rare cases, howev *417 er, the lessor may himself hinder the lessee’s performance, precipitating the special limitation and defeasance of the lessee’s estate.” Syl. pt. 1, Wilson states: When the habendum clause in an oil and gas lease requires drilling or production within the primary term for the lessee to avoid forfeiture and termination of the lease, the courts will normally honor the letter of the lease; however, if the lessor himself hinders the les 1994In Wilson, 182 W.Va. at 344 , 387 S.E.2d at 811 , we noted that although “the courts’ will normally honor the letter of the lease ... [, i]n rare cases, howev *417 er, the lessor may himself hinder the lessee’s performance, precipitating the special limitation and defeasance of the lessee’s estate.” Syl. pt. 1, Wilson states: When the habendum clause in an oil and gas lease requires drilling or production within the primary term for the lessee to avoid forfeiture and termination of the lease, the courts will normally honor the letter of the lease; however, if the lessor himself hinders the les | 1 | 1 |
Warner v. Haught, Inc.green2 sentences1986In that case we remarked: “[T]here is a distinct notion of inconsistency in requiring, in a lease which obligates the lessee to do nothing, notice and demand before automatic termination.” (emphasis in original) Warner v. Haught, Inc., 174 W.Va. 722, 729 , 329 S.E.2d 88, 95 (1985). 6 An important public policy is promoted by construing the “thereafter” provision of the habendum clause and a cessation of production clause of an oil and gas lease (or other mineral lease) as conveying an interest which automatically terminates without prior notice: The language of th[ese] clause[s] clearly suppor 1986In that case we remarked: “[T]here is a distinct notion of inconsistency in requiring, in a lease which obligates the lessee to do nothing, notice and demand before automatic termination.” (emphasis in original) Warner v. Haught, Inc., 174 W.Va. 722, 729 , 329 S.E.2d 88, 95 (1985). 6 An important public policy is promoted by construing the “thereafter” provision of the habendum clause and a cessation of production clause of an oil and gas lease (or other mineral lease) as conveying an interest which automatically terminates without prior notice: The language of th[ese] clause[s] clearly suppor | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCullough Oil, Inc. v. Rezek
green
2 sentences2016McCullough Oil, Inc. v. Rezek, 176 W. 2001As slat *207 ed in McCullough Oil, Inc. v. Rezek, id. at 642-44, 346 S.E.2d at 792 -94: An oil and gas lease (or other mineral lease) is both a conveyance and a contract. | 2 | 2001–2016 |
Maberry v. Gueths
green
2 sentences1992The deed considered in that case contained language in the habendum clause similar to that before us now, namely “to have and to hold ... its successors and assigns forever.” 238 Mont. at 308 , 777 P.2d at 1288 . 1992The deed considered in that case contained language in the habendum clause similar to that before us now, namely “to have and to hold ... its successors and assigns forever.” 238 Mont. at 308 , 777 P.2d at 1288 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Lott v. Braham
neutral
2 sentences1961Lott v. Braham, 92 W.Va. 317 , 116 S. E. 513 . 1961Lott v. Braham, 92 W.Va. 317 , 116 S. E. 513 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Inlow v. Herren
neutral
2 sentences1954Pollock v. Brayton, 163 N. E. 573 , 29 Ohio App. 296 ; Inlow v. Herren, 267 S. W. 893 , 306 Mo. 42 ; Wallace v. Quick, 156 S. C. 248, 153 S. E. 168 . 1954Pollock v. Brayton, 29 Ohio App. 296 , 163 N.E. 573 ; Inlow v. Herren, 306 Mo. 42 , 267 S.W. *621 893; Wallace v. Quick, 156 S.C. 248 , 153 S.E. 168 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Pollock v. Brayton
neutral
2 sentences1954Pollock v. Brayton, 29 Ohio App. 296 , 163 N.E. 573 ; Inlow v. Herren, 306 Mo. 42 , 267 S.W. *621 893; Wallace v. Quick, 156 S.C. 248 , 153 S.E. 168 . 1954Pollock v. Brayton, 29 Ohio App. 296 , 163 N.E. 573 ; Inlow v. Herren, 306 Mo. 42 , 267 S.W. *621 893; Wallace v. Quick, 156 S.C. 248 , 153 S.E. 168 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Wornom v. Hampton Normal & Agricultural Institute
green
2 sentences1954If there be no habendum in such a deed, the law determines the estate it passes, and, under section 8, c. 71 of the Code, the grantee takes an estate in fee simple absolute, by legal implication." In Browning v. Bluegrass Hardware Co., 153 Va. 20 , 149 S.E. 497 , the Court quoted with approval a statement found in Wornom v. Hampton Normal & Agricultural Institute, 144 Va. 533 , 132 S.E. 344, 347 , which was there quoted with approval from Thornhill v. Hall, 8 Bligh's Rep. 1954If there be no habendum in such a deed, the law determines the estate it passes, and, under section 8, c. 71 of the Code, the grantee takes an estate in fee simple absolute, by legal implication." In Browning v. Bluegrass Hardware Co., 153 Va. 20 , 149 S.E. 497 , the Court quoted with approval a statement found in Wornom v. Hampton Normal & Agricultural Institute, 144 Va. 533 , 132 S.E. 344, 347 , which was there quoted with approval from Thornhill v. Hall, 8 Bligh's Rep. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Browning v. Bluegrass Hardware Co.
green
2 sentences1954If there be no habendum in such a deed, the law determines the estate it passes, and, under section 8, c. 71 of the Code, the grantee takes an estate in fee simple absolute, by legal implication." In Browning v. Bluegrass Hardware Co., 153 Va. 20 , 149 S.E. 497 , the Court quoted with approval a statement found in Wornom v. Hampton Normal & Agricultural Institute, 144 Va. 533 , 132 S.E. 344, 347 , which was there quoted with approval from Thornhill v. Hall, 8 Bligh's Rep. 1954If there be no habendum in such a deed, the law determines the estate it passes, and, under section 8, c. 71 of the Code, the grantee takes an estate in fee simple absolute, by legal implication." In Browning v. Bluegrass Hardware Co., 153 Va. 20 , 149 S.E. 497 , the Court quoted with approval a statement found in Wornom v. Hampton Normal & Agricultural Institute, 144 Va. 533 , 132 S.E. 344, 347 , which was there quoted with approval from Thornhill v. Hall, 8 Bligh's Rep. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Columbia Weighing Machine Co. v. Murphy
neutral
2 sentences1954Pollock v. Brayton, 163 N. E. 573 , 29 Ohio App. 296 ; Inlow v. Herren, 267 S. W. 893 , 306 Mo. 42 ; Wallace v. Quick, 156 S. C. 248, 153 S. E. 168 . 1954Pollock v. Brayton, 29 Ohio App. 296 , 163 N.E. 573 ; Inlow v. Herren, 306 Mo. 42 , 267 S.W. *621 893; Wallace v. Quick, 156 S.C. 248 , 153 S.E. 168 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Wallace v. Quick
neutral
1 sentence1954Pollock v. Brayton, 29 Ohio App. 296 , 163 N.E. 573 ; Inlow v. Herren, 306 Mo. 42 , 267 S.W. *621 893; Wallace v. Quick, 156 S.C. 248 , 153 S.E. 168 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Killgore v. County Court of Cabell County
green
2 sentences1946But in the instant case the Thacker deed to the County Court of Wayne County was an absolute grant in fee simple, though the deed provides in the habendum clause that it is “to be used for county road purposes.” The consideration recited in the deed, in addition to the one dollar receipted for therein, is “benefits that will accrue to said parties of the first part from the construction of a (or a change in the) County-district road. * * The Thacker deed is strikingly similar to that involved in Killgore v. County Court of Cabell County, 80 W. 1946Va. 283 , 92 S. E. 562 , in which the recited consideration was six hundred dollars in cash and “the advantages and benefits which will enure to them [the grantors] by reason of the construction of said railroad”, which deed provided in the haben-dum clause that the grant was made “for the construction of a double track of railway, through” grantors’ lands. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Brown v. Hobbs
green
1 sentence1929Conditions restraining alienation are, for this and other reasons, odious to the law, and against public policy.” • In the Maryland case of Brown et al. v. Hobbs, 104 Atl. 283 , ‘the habendum clause in a deed attempted to restrict the rights of the grantee and his 'heirs to devise or convey to persons named Brown. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Acker v. . Pridgen
neutral
1 sentence1914Acker v. Pridgen, 158 N. C. 337 . | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Western Penna. Gas Co. v. George
neutral
1 sentence1896Gas Co. v. George 16 Pa. St. 47 ( 28 Atl. 1004 ). | 1 | 1896–1896 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.