Enterprise Transit Co. v. Hazelwood Oil Co.

Citations

• 20 Pa. Super. 127
• 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 196

Syllabus

<p>Trespass — Possession—Constructive possession — Action.</p> <p>To enable a plaintiff to maintain an action of trespass quare clausum i'regit, he must have the possession, actual or constructive, of the close which he alleges has been invaded. If the land entered by the trespasser is unimproved, possession will be presumed to accompany the title and this constructive possession will support an action. If the land is improved, that fact shows that it is in the actual possession of some one. In such a ease the plaintiff cannot rest on his title, but must show his possession.</p> <p>Where in an action of trespass it appears that plaintiff and defendant owned adjoining tracts of land, neither of which was improved in the ordinary sense, but upon both of which were oil wells, and it also appears that the defendant after having drilled and maintained a well on plaintiff’s land for several years abandoned the well and removed the machinery, and that thereupon plaintiff re-entered and erected a wire fence along a portion of the boundary line, plaintiff’s possession after re-entry is sufficient to support the action for the injury done by the wrongful boring of the well upon his premises.</p> <p>Estoppel — Ignorance of facts — Prilling oil wells.</p> <p>In an action of trespass for drilling an oil well on the plaintiff’s land where it appears that neither party knew the boundary line between plaintiff’s and defendant’s lands, and that neither party actually knew that the well in question was drilled on plaintiff’s land, the defendant cannot claim that plaintiff's knowledge of the existence and operation of the well for many years estopped him from recovering damages.</p>