## Facts

- Law owned an undivided 1/768 interest in the oil and gas underlying a tract; Heck Oil Company held, by ownership or lease, the remaining 767/768 interest.
- The parties were co-tenants in the mineral estate.
- Heck sought to drill and attempted to obtain Law’s consent by lease or agreement, but negotiations failed.
- Heck proceeded with drilling operations without Law’s consent.
- Heck offered to account to Law for his proportionate share of any production and represented that Law would receive his share without deductions for development or operating expenses.
- Law filed an equity action seeking to enjoin drilling and development as against his undivided interest.

## Issues

1. Whether a co-tenant may enjoin oil-and-gas drilling and development by another co-tenant (or its lessee) undertaken without unanimous co-tenant consent, even when the developer owns nearly all remaining interests and offers a pro rata accounting.
2. Whether unilateral drilling over a co-tenant’s objection constitutes an actionable invasion of the objecting co-tenant’s property interest warranting injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the trial court’s decree.
- The court upheld a permanent injunction restraining Heck from drilling and developing the tract without Law’s consent.
- The court rejected the position that Heck’s overwhelming fractional ownership and willingness to account to Law permitted development over Law’s objection.

## Legal Principles

- In a co-tenancy mineral estate, a non-consenting co-tenant may block and enjoin oil-and-gas development undertaken without unanimous consent, even if the non-consenting interest is extremely small.
- Unilateral extraction over an objecting co-tenant’s dissent may be treated as an improper interference with the co-tenant’s real property interest in minerals in place, not cured solely by an offer to pay a share of proceeds.
- Injunctive relief is appropriate where drilling would irreversibly convert an owner’s interest in minerals in place into a mere claim to personalty (production proceeds) and money damages are not an adequate substitute for the loss of the property right.

## Conclusion

The court held that, under West Virginia co-tenancy principles applied to oil and gas, unanimous co-tenant consent was required for development, allowing even a 1/768 owner to enjoin drilling by the holder of the remaining interests despite an offer to account for production.


Law v. Heck Oil Co., 106 W. Va. 296, 145 S.E. 601 (W. Va. 1928)