Gulf Refining Co. v. United States

284 F. 90, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2344
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided September 11, 1922·No. No. 5899·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

LEWIS, Circuit Judge,

The plaintiff in error (defendant below) was convicted and fined on 99 counts of an indictment charging that it received concessions on shipments of gasoline to its refinery at Port Arthur, Texas, from Kiefer, Drumright and Jenks, Oklahoma, in violation of Section 1 of the Act of February 19, 1903 ( 32 Stat. 847), as amended by the Act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. 587, § 2 [Comp. St. § 8597]). The shipments were all made by the Gypsy Oil Company between December 2, 1916, and the early part of 1919, but the freight charges were paid by defendant, and it alleged that they were under the lawful rate, the contention being that the difference in amount between the rate on gasoline and what was paid (rate on unrefined naptha) constituted a concession. Prior and subsequent to December 2, 1916, the tariff gave a rate to Port Arthur of 33 cents per 100 on gasoline in lank cars, but on that date a rate regularly established of 19% cents per 100 on unrefined naptha in tank cars became effective and continued throughout the time covered by all shipments in controversy. There were, then, the two rates between points of origin and destination, one on .gasoline in tank cars, the other on unrefined naptha in tank cars, both listed in the tariff under the general heading: “Oils.” Prior to December 2 shipments were made at the rate on gasoline, and the commodity was so designated by the shipper, thereafter the same commodity was shipped to Port'Arthur at the rate on unrefined naptha, and the commodity so designated. The indictment charges that the commodity shipped was in each instance gasoline; hence the burden was on the prosecution to establish that the commodity was gasoline, —not unrefined naptha. When the trial opened it was stipulated, among other things:

“Throughout the aforesaid period (covering the shipments), and prior thereto the Gulf Oil Corporation was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey; that the Gypsy Oil Company was a corporation under the laws of the State of Oklahoma; that the Gulf Refining Company was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas; that the Gulf Pipe Line Company was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas; and during said period all of the capital stock of the Gypsy Oil Company, Gulf Refining Company and the Gulf Pipe Line Company was owned and controlled by the Gulf Oil Corporation, except that the directors of each of the three last mentioned companies held shares in each of said companies sufficient to qualify them as directors.”

We gather from the record that the Gulf Oil Corporation has its main office and conducts its principal business at Pittsburgh, Pa., that [92] the Gulf Refining Company owns and operates an oil refining plant at Port Arthur, that the Gulf Pipe Line Company is a carrying company owning a pipe line from the Oklahoma oil fields to the defendant’s refinery at Port Arthur, through which crude oil is carried to the tefinery, and that the Gypsy Oil Company owns and operates at Kiefer, Drum-right and J enks what are known as casing-head compression plants, into which natural gas is conducted and its alleged gasoline content extracted in liquid form by condensation under compression.

The evidence showfe that when crude oil reaches the refinery at Port Arthur it is put through the distilling process. As heat is applied the component parts known as the lighter ends vaporize first, and all of them, down to what is called the kerosene cut, when taken off and condensed into liquid form, are technically and commercially known by the generic name of naptha, which embodies gasoline, benzine and naptha. By further distillation those three may be separated, coming off in vapor in the order named for condensation, the naptha part being then designated as heavy, crude or painter’s naptha. A part of this crude or painter’s naptha is shipped in tank cars to the compression plants at Kiefer and Drumright. Their product, if exposed, will again-become gaseous. Its vapor tension is more than ten pounds to the square inch, and there are restrictions by the Interstate Commeixe Commission on its shipment on account of its dangerous character. One of the witnesses testified that if it were shipped and the dome of the tank car in which it was contained were removed at the end of the route it would all escape in the air. The crude or painter’s naptha having a gravity around 54, which the defendant shipped to the casing-head compression plants, was for the purpose of mixing or blending with the product of those plants, which served two purposes; the blending reduced the vapor tension, and when that was brought below ten pounds the restrictions on shipment were not so severe, and secondly, the naptha acted as a sponge to the casing-head condensate (commonly known as casing-head gasoline) and prevented to a great extent evaporation. The blending at the two plants was in the ratio of 30 to 35% naptha to 65 to 70% casing-head gasoline. At the Jenks plant another method was pursued. Instead of blending the casing-head gasoline with the naptha the casing-head was exposed and permitted to evaporate until its most volatile parts had escaped; it was then steamed and the vapor tension thus reduced below ten pounds. This was the commodity, — blended from two plants and weathered from the other,— shipped under the “unrefined naptha” rate, but which the indictment-charges to be gasoline.

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

Gulf Refining Co. v. United States, 284 F. 90, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2344 (8th Cir. 1922).

284 F. 90 (Gulf Refining Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Gulf Refining Co.
268 U.S. 542 (Supreme Court, 1925)