Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation v. Gregg

337 S.W.2d 222, 13 Oil & Gas Rep. 66, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2383
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 15, 1960
Docket10774
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 337 S.W.2d 222 (Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation v. Gregg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation v. Gregg, 337 S.W.2d 222, 13 Oil & Gas Rep. 66, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2383 (Tex. Ct. App. 1960).

Opinion

GRAY, Justice.

This cause is a companion case to our Cause No. 10,773, Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation v. A. W. Gregg, Tex.Civ.App., 337 S.W.2d 216 this day decided.

Appellants, Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation and Mayfair Minerals, Inc., sued appellee, A. W. Gregg, as the owner of oil and gas leases on two tracts of land located in the City of Pharr, Hidalgo County. The first tract is .207 acres of land known as the Wilkinson tract and the second tract is .4 acres of land known as the Butler tract. Appellants own oil and gas leases on lands completely surrounding the Wilkinson and Butler tracts.

Appellee is drilling, or now has drilled, wells on each of his tracts of land which wells are to be completed in the Hansen sand. The well on the Wilkinson tract is located approximately 10 feet from appellants’ lease to the north and the well on the Butler tract is located approximately 50 feet from appellants’ lease to the east.

The Hansen sand underlies appellants’ leases and they alleged that unless restrained appellee will complete his wells by sand fracturing the Hansen sand to their injury and damage. They prayed for in-junctive relief.

Appellee answered and urged a plea in abatement which is of the same substance as his plea in Cause No. 10,773 supra. This plea was sustained by the trial court and appellants’ cause was dismissed because the trial court was of the opinion that he was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause. The judgment rendered is the same as the judgment rendered in Cause No. 10,773 supra.

Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for the same reasons assigned in his motion to dismiss the appeal in Cause No. 10,773. The motion is overruled.

The questions here presented are the same as those presented in Cause No. 10,773 and our opinion in that cause is here adopted as a disposition of this cause.

*223 The judgment of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded with instructions that it be reinstated on the docket for a trial on its merits.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wasson v. Stracener
786 S.W.2d 414 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Gregg v. Delhi-Taylor Oil Corp.
344 S.W.2d 411 (Texas Supreme Court, 1961)
Coastal Gulf Oil Co. v. Delhi-Taylor Oil Corp.
341 S.W.2d 224 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
337 S.W.2d 222, 13 Oil & Gas Rep. 66, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delhi-taylor-oil-corporation-v-gregg-texapp-1960.