Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Texas Co. v. Railroad Commission of Texas

Texas Co. v. Railroad Commission of Texas

246 S.W.2d 487, 1 Oil & Gas Rep. 560, 1952 Tex. App. LEXIS 1955
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 6, 1952
Docket10012
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 246 S.W.2d 487 (Texas Co. v. Railroad Commission of Texas) 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
Texas Co. v. Railroad Commission of Texas, 246 S.W.2d 487, 1 Oil & Gas Rep. 560, 1952 Tex. App. LEXIS 1955 (Tex. Ct. App. 1952).

Opinion

GRAY, Justice.

This is a Rule 37 case. The question presented is the validity of a special permit granted appellees jointly to drill a well on a 4½ acre tract of land, a part of the H. F. Robinson survey, in the Hawkins oil field in Wood County. Appellee, Humble. Qil and Refining Company (later referred to as Humble), owns an oil and gas lease on an undivided three-fourths, interest in the tract, and appellee, Harry M. Jones, owns the fee title to the remaining undivided one-fourth interest in said tract.- The application for the permit joined these undivided interests for the purposes of the well.

The suit was filed by The Texas Company against the Commission, Humble and Jones seeking to cancel the permit. B. B. Orr intervened as a party plaintiff. From an adverse judgment of the trial court, The Texas Company and Orr have appealed and are aligned together here.

The discovery well in the Hawkins field was completed in December, 1940. The spacing rule for the field was adopted January 4, 1941, and provided that no well (oil or gas) should thereafter be drilled nearer than 933 feet to any other completed or drilling well on the same or adjoining tracts, and nearer than 466 feet to any prop *488 erty line, lease or subdivision line; provided for the granting of exceptions to prevent waste or the confiscation of property, and providing further that “the general order of the Commission with relation to subdivision of properties shall be observed.” The permit was granted June 4, 1948, “to prevent confiscation of property and to prevent physical waste.” The parties stipulated that: “Enough wells have been drilled in the vicinity of the 4.S acre tract to produce the recoverable oil beneath said tract and it is unnecessary to drill a well on the 4.0 acre tract to prevent physical waste’ of oil or gas.”

Thus, the only question here is whether or not the 4½ acre tract may be developed as a separate tract to prevent confiscation of property as an exception to the rules of the Commission. Appellants say it cannot because the tract is an illegal subdivision within the meaning of the rules.

For convenience in relating the pertinent history of the title to the 4½ acre tract and adjoining tracts, we attach the following map:

uWGAtM6xAJa5MU9YTkUb4FvnWAD2xfCsc

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

Related

Railroad Commission of Texas v. Williams
336 S.W.2d 800 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
State v. Williams
326 S.W.2d 551 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 S.W.2d 487, 1 Oil & Gas Rep. 560, 1952 Tex. App. LEXIS 1955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-co-v-railroad-commission-of-texas-texapp-1952.