Shivers Family Legends - © Shivers Family Legends Website  ©
A Family History of Religious Migration
Shivers Family Legends - ©



TimeLine 1767 Marriage - Elizabeth Shivers and Daniel Cozens Sept 5 1767 1769 Marriage - Josiah Shivers and Hannah Pond Jan 16 1769 1781 Marriage - Hannah Shivers and Joshua Haines May 6 1781 1788 Marriage - John Shivers and Zilla Roberts Feb 5 1788 1817 Birth - John W Shivers 1821 Mar 21 Abraham Shivers The Jury in the case of Abraham Shivers vs. The Political Examiner for libel, returned a verdict of "not guilty" 1823 Birth - Dr James Knighton Shivers Nov 14 1823 Philadelphia Penn 1828 Book - Dr. Thomas Shivers Chester County Hazards Register V1 1835 Military - Adam Shivers Jun 1st 1835 Penn Militia 1st Brig, 1st Div,9th Reg, 2nd Batl. 1849 Will - Thomas shivers May 31 1849 proved July 1 1850 1850 Death - Thomas Shivers died Philadelphia 1863 Philidelphia Pennsylvania Directory 1863 Charles Chevers - Brushmaker - 418 Carpenter George Chevers - Cabinetmaker - 418 Carpenter B.H Shivers - MD - 1303 Marshall Charles Shivers - Druggist - N E Spruce & 7th h316 S 7th Jane Shivers - Gentlewoman - 917 Locust John Shivers - Brickmaker - 1707 Burton John Shivers - Driver - 1115 Thurlow Lemeul Shivers - Carpenter - 319 N 22nd 1880 Philadelphia PA Census pg 27, dist 1 dist no 466 Inmate House of Corrections Shivers, John W 63 Widower Occupation - Brickmaker born - PA 1881 Death - Emma Shivers Aug 4 1881 1883 Court Thomas Shivers - Jan 1883 Appeal from Orphan Court Philladelphia 1901 Birth - Preston Finley Shivers b. Aug 10 1901 d. Dec 1 1988 - Orange California 1902 Birth - Denard Wilson Shivers b. Feb 18 1902 d. Nov 17 1993 - Los Angeles California
1.1 Thomas Shivers Sr. D. 1850 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Sp. Jeanette Dauphin 2.1 Dr. James Knighton Shivers B. Nov 14 1823 D. Dec 27 1864 - Savannah , Ga M. Jun 6 1860 Sp. Emma Trainer 2.2 Emma Shivers 2.3 Dr. Thomas "Tomas" Shivers Jr.
Walk through America - Pennsylvania

Documents from Pennsylvania
Census, Deed and Grant Images on File

Pennsylvania Archives 3rd

Francis Shivers xxii,236
John Shivers    xiii,730
Andrew Shivers  xxv,639
Francis Shivers xxv,629,638
Jacob Shivers   xxv,639
John Shivers xx,721 xxv 639
John A Shivers xxiv, 340


1800 Census Shivers, John BEV 15
Pennsylvania State Reports Containing Cases Decided by the Supreme Mar 20 1883 University of Pennsylvania General Catalogue of the Medical Graduates of the University of Pennsylvania 1845 Name Residence Date Subject of Essay Shivers, James K Pennsylvania 1843 Pleurisy Shivers, Thomas Jr Delaware 1820 Tetanus The Register of Pennsylvania: devoted to the preservation of facts Adam Shivers Maj 2nd Bat, 9th Reg , 1st Brig,1st Div. Hazard's Register of Pennsylvania: Devoted to the Preservation Shivers Island, the Jerseys, between Monnis Island and the Jerseys, between Tinnicum Island and Penn, between Hog Island and Penn, between Leauge Island and Penn, between Wind Mill Island and the Jerseys, between Petty's Island and the Jerseys. Chester County 1828 - Dr Thomas Shivers. No genuine variola subsequent to vaccination, but has had three cases in persons previously inoculated, one of whom died. Regards vaccination as the only secure prophylactic. As instances of the malignant nature of the prevailing small pox, we will cite from Dr. S's letter to the committee,the following "Ofseven cases that I have had this season of natural small pox in subjects who had never been either vaccinated or inoculated, all have died, while of about 40 cases in persons vaccinated, not one has perished.
Jennie D. Shellar, Widow, and R. J . McCleery, Guardian of Elmer E., Albert G., Ida F., Mary C. and Margaret A. Shellar, Minors, v. James Shivers and Insell Brenell, Appellants. Fi:ctures.Oil lease.Removcl of fixtures. The casing in an oil or gas well, the derrick and other appliances used in drilling and operating the well are trade fixtures, and may be removed by the owner or lessee during the term of the lease; but they become the P1.0Pe1.ty of the landowner if not removed by the lessee during the term, Or at least within a reasonable time after its expiration. [graphic] Syllabus-.Opinion of Court below. [171Pa. The term of an oil and gas lease was for .three years, or as much longer thereafter as oil or gas might be found in paying quantities, with the right in the said lessee to enter upon said premises at any time for the purpose of mining " etc. The lease also provided that the lessee had . the right to remove at any time all machinery, oil well supplies or appurtenances of any kind belonging to the said lessee.. The well never produced oil or gas in paying quantities. Held, that after the expiration of fodr years from the date of the termination of the lease, and five years and six months after the well had been completed and found to be of no use. the lessee could not enter to remove the casings from the well. Argued Oct. 22, 1895. Appeal, No. 183, Oct. T., 1895, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. Washington Co., Nov. T., 1892, No. 401, on case stated. Before STERRETT, C. J ., Gases, WILLIAMS, MCCOLLUM, MITCHELL, DEAN and FELL, JJ. Afiii-med. I Case stated to determine the right to remove casings from oil wells. The facts appear by the opinion of the lower court by MCILVAINE, P. J ., which was as follows: On the 27th day of October, 1892, Samuel M. Shellar was t_he owner in fee and was in possession of a tract of land situated in Buffalo township containing 255 acres more or less. On that day the defendants entered upon said tract of land against the will and without the consent of the owner Samuel M. Shellar, for the purpose of taking casing out of a hole that had been drilled for oil and gas in the spring of 1887, and of removing other fixtures which had been used in drilling this well which produced neither oil nor gas in paying quantities. The casing and fixtures at the time the well was drilled belonged to the defendants. Samuel M. Shellar, claiming that this entry upon his land for the purpose indicated was unlawful, brought an action of trespass against the defendant on the day of , 1893. He having died before that action was tried, his heirs and the defendants have agreed upon the facts and have submitted them in the nature of a special verdict for the opinion of the court. On November 11, 1885, Samuel M. Shellar executed and delivered to J. B. Akin a lease of this 255 acres for oil and gas Purposes; the term was for .three years or as much longer thereafter as oil or gas might be found in paying quantities [graphic] 1895.] Opinion of Court below. with the right in the said lessee to enter upon said premises at any time for the purpose of mining,. etc. The lease also provided that the lessee had . the right to remove at any time any and all machinery, oil well supplies or appurtenances of any kind belonging to the said lessee.. The lessee and those who claimed under him entered under said lease upon this tract of land and drilled a well, completing it in April, 1887. The well produced neither oil nor gas in paying quantities, and the lessee and his assigns ceased opera.tions on the premises. The engine and boiler used in drilling the well was taken away, but the casingin the well and other fixtures were left and remained on the premises and were there on the said 27th day of October, 1892, when the defendants entered to remove them. The question for determination is, Were the defendants trespassers? Had they a right to remove the fixtures connected with and used in drilling this well which was completed and abandoned as worthless in April, 1887? The term was for three years from November, 1885, or as much longer as gas or oil is found in paying quantities--.that is, as much longer as gas or. oil is found in paying quantities, if found before the expiration of the three years: Western Penn. Gas Co. v. George, 161 Pa. 47. There was no oil or gas found in paying quantities, therefore this lease expired on the 11th day of November, 1888, nearly four years before the defendants undertook to remove the fixtures which they left behind when they ceased operations, and from the time they ceased operations at this well until the expiration of the lease, over eighteen months interval. I do not think that there can be any doubt that the casing in an oil or gas well, the derrick and other appliances used in drilling and operating it are trade fixtures, and can be removed by the owner or lessee during the term of the lease. On the other hand I think there can be no doubt that they are such fixtures that they become the property of the land owner if not removed by the lessee during the term, or at least within a reasonable time after its expiration. These two propositions are both, of course, subject to modification by the agreement of the parties. Are they modified in this case? because, if they are not, then the defendants had no right to enter upon the plaintiffs. land for the purpose of removing the fixtures in question. The Opinion of Court below. [171 Pa. lease provides that the lessee shall have . the right to remove at any time any or all machinery,. etc. It is claimed that the words at .any time,. must be given their fullest meaning, and that the defendants. right to remove fixtures by agreement of the lessor was unlimited as to time; and that although their entry to remove the casing was made four years after the lease expired and five years and six months after the well was completed and found to be of no use as an oil or gas well, yet their entry and purpose were lawful as they had the right to remove any or all fixtures at any time. We think that this was not the intention of the parties as gathered from the language of the lease. The lease was for a fixed period to be extended to an indefinite period, and the extension to depend upon what the future might develop. [The right to enter at any time and the right to remove machinery at any time was predicated of that part of the term that was uncertain, that is, after three years the lessee had the right at any time to enter and drill additional wells, if oil or gas was being produced in paying quantities ;] [1] and had the right, although the three years had passed, to remove the machinery and fixtures after or when the well would cease to produce oil or gas in paying quantities. If this construction is correct then the rule of law as to removal of fixtures would be as in cases where the tenancy is uncertain in duration, as when it depends upon a contingency, and that is, that the removal must be made within a reasonable time; or in other words the law in such cases allows the tenant a reasonable time for the removal of fixtures. Here the lessees, if oil or gas had been found in paying quantities, would have had a reasonable time within which tg draw their casing and remove their derricks after it had become apparent that the operation of the wells was no longer profitable, let this be soon or long after the expiration of the three years; [at any time when they thought it would no longer pay to operate their wells which had been producing oil or gas in paying quantities they had a right to remove the fixtures connected with such wells.] [2] Under the facts as we have them in this case, howeven .llerations ceased on this lease in April, 1887; a dry hole was found, nothing was done between the completion of this well 1895.] Opinion of Court below-Arguments. and the time when the lease expired in November, 1888, and after that [four years are allowed to expire before an attempt to remove these fixtures was made. In our opinion this was too late.] If, under the words . at any time,. the lessee could take four years after the expiration of the lease to remove his fixtures, he could as well take twenty years. [To say that the lessor could prevent this by giving notice that the fixtures must be moved within a certain time is to read something into the contract that is not there.] [4] [And now, February 5, 1895, judgment is entered upon the facts agreed upon by the parties hereto in the nature of a special verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for six and one fourth cents and costs.] [5] From this judgment defendants appealed. Errors assigned were (1-5) portions of opinion of the court, quoting them. John W. Donmm, R. B. Stone with him, for appellants.-.It is not controverted that fixtures erected on demised premises for the purpose of drilling for oil and gas are to be regarded as trade fixtures, which may be taken away by the tenant even though aflixed to the soil or freehold, at any time during the continuance of the term without any stipulation to that effect: Taylor on Landlord and Tenant, sec. 5.45; Leniarv. Miles, 4 Watts, 332; VVhite v. Arndt, 1 Wha1'. 91; Watts v. Lehman, 107 Pa. 111; Carver v. Gough, 153 Pa. 228; Hill v. Seward, 53 Pa. 271; Seeger v. Pettit, 77 Pa. 437; Morris. App., 88 Pa. 368; Vail V. Weaver, 132 Pa. 363. The right to so extend the time for removal of fixtures by contract is recognized by all the authorities; Taylor on Landlord and Tenant, sec. 554; Moody v. Alexander, 145 Pa. 582. Whether attached to the realty or not, or in whatever manner attached, is immaterial when the parties agree to consider it personal property. Consent will change property otherwise real into personal estate: Shell v. Haywood, 16 Pa. 530; White's App., 10 Pa. 252; Piper v. Martin, 8 Pa. 211; Mitchell v. Freedley, 10 Pa. 198; Harlan v. Harlan, 20 Pa. 307; Bank v. North, 160 Pa. 303; Coleman v. Lewis, 27 Pa. 291; 1 Sug den on Vendors, 183. [graphic][graphic] Arguments-_0pinion of the Court. [171 Pa. Where, as in the present case, the licensee has gone to expense relying upon the license, the licensor is estopped from revoking the license, and thus an easement is created: Rerick v. Kern, 14 S. & R. 267; Davis v. Sonder, 10 Phila. 113; Cumberland Val. R. R. v. McLanahan, 59 Pa. 23; Big Mt. Imp. Co..s App., 54 Pa. 361. It is irrevocable when coupled with an interest in the land, and assignable with the interest: Golf v. Oberteufl'er, 3 Phila. 74; 13 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 546; Heflin v. Bingham, 56 Ala. 566; Sawyer v. Wilson, 61 Me. 529; Lockard V. Robbins, 7 Cent. 565; 2 Am. & Eng. Leading Cases, 563. T. F.┬╗Birch, for appellees..T he intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the e ntire instrument, not from particular words or phrases without reference to the context, and the instrument shall operate according to the intention unless it be contrary to law: Berridge v. Glassey, 112 Pa. 455; Wager'v. Wager, 1 S. & R. 374; Shields v. Delo, 145 Pa. 395. The rule to be collected from the several cases decided seems to be this, that the tenant.s right to remove fixtures continues during his original term, a.nd during such further period of possession by him as he holds the premises under a right still to consider himself a tenant: Loughran v. Ross, 6 Amer. R. 176. PER CURIAM, October 24, 1895: This judgment was entered on the case stated for the opinion of the court, in the nature of a special verdict. The question involved was, whether under the terms of the lease the lessees had the right to remove the material, machinery and fixtures, placed by them upon the property for the purpose of drilling the oil well and remaining there after the expiration of the lease. In a clear, concise and satisfactory opinion the learned judge rightly held that they had not, and he accordingly entered judgment in favor of the plaintifis as provided for in the case stated. The correctness of this conclusion is so fully vindicated in the opinion that, without further discussion of the subject, we affirm the judgment on said opinion. Judgment afiirmed. 1895.] . Syllabus.Charge of Court.




NEXT ->Where are we going Next ?