Patterson v. Stanolind Oil Gas Co
| Decision Date | 03 January 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 113,113 |
| Citation | 59 S.Ct. 259,305 U.S. 376,83 L.Ed. 231 |
| Parties | PATTERSON v. STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO. et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. R. J. Roberts and W. M. Haulsee, both of Wewoka, Okl., for appellant.
The Court declined to hear further argument.
In this suit, brought to recover his share of oil royalties, the plaintiff challenged the validity, under the contract clause and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14, of the Well-Spacing Act of the State of Oklahoma (Chap. 59, art. 1, Okla.Sess. Laws 1935, 52 Okl.St.Ann. §§ 85—87, 136—138) and an order made thereunder by the Corporation Commission of that State. The Supreme Court of the State, affirming the judgment of the District Court with a modification immaterial here, sustained the validity of the statute and order. 182 Okl. 155, 77 P.2d 83. The plaintiff brings this appeal.
The Corporation Commission fixed the boundaries of the common source of oil supply in the North Wellston area in Lincoln County, Oklahoma, so as to include 520 acres and authorized ten-acre well-spacing units within that area. The well in question is in the approximate center of one of these ten-acre units. That unit consists of 6 1/4 acres which lie in tract 'A' and 3 3/4 acres in tract 'B', these tracts being in separate ownership. The well is located on tract 'A'. The statute (Sec. 4(c), 52 Okl.St.Ann. § 87(c), provides:
'In the event a producing well, or wells, is completed upon a unit where there are two or more separately owned tracts, any royalty owner, or group of royalty owners, holding the royalty interest under a separately owned tract, shall share in one-eighth (1/8) of all the production from the well or wells drilled within the unit in the proportion that the acreage of their separately owned tract bears to the entire acreage of the unit'.
Under that provision, as construed by the state court, the owners of the mineral rights in the 3 3/4 acres of the drilling unit are permitted to share with the plaintiff, and his co-owners of the mineral rights in the other 6 1/4 acres of the unit, the oil and gas produced from the well although it is located entirely upon the surface of the 6 1/4 acre tract. Plaintiff contends that this distribution among the owners of the 3 3/4 acres works an unconstitutional deprivation of his property and an impairment of his contractual rights. The Corporation Commission found as follows:
'That the said well as above described is located in the approximate center of a 10-acre tract of land, and that taking into consideration the depth of the well now producing in said common source of supply, the thickness, porosity, and permeability of the producing sand, the nature and character of the reservoir energy, the formations encountered in the drilling of the well, and the history and productive characteristics of wells in other common sources of supply which have similar formations, and from other geological and scientific information and data as shown by the records, the Commission finds that a well-spacing and drilling unit of 10 acres and of uninform size should be established in the said North Wellston pool; that the same would tend to effect the proper drainage of oil from said pool, and would result in uniform withdrawal and in the greatest ultimate recovery of oil, and would best conserve reservoir...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Republic Natural Gas Co v. State of Oklahoma
...power to require Republic to compensate Peerless for the gas drained from under the Peerless land. Patterson v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 305 U.S. 376, 59 S.Ct. 259, 83 L.Ed. 231. Here, instead of requiring Republic to make a cash payment based on the estimated amount of drainage, the commis......
-
Superior Oil Co. v. Foote
...pooling statute is Patterson v. Stanolind Oil and Gas Company, 1938, 182 Okl. 155, 77 P.2d 83, appeal dismissed, 1938, 305 U.S. 376, 59 S.Ct. 259, 83 L.Ed. 231. See also Palmer Oil Corporation v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 1951, 204 Okl. 543, 231 P.2d 997, appeal dismissed 72 S.Ct. 842; Cities......
-
Hunter Co. v. McHugh
... ... regarding the constitutionality of Act No. 157 of 1940, was ... raised by the plaintiff in the case of Patterson v. Stanolind ... Oil & Gas Co., 182 Okl. 155, 77 P.2d 83, in which the ... plaintiff questioned the constitutionality of a compulsory ... ...
-
Northern Natural Gas Company v. State Corporation Commission of Kansas
...upon and beneath their lands. We have recognized such power with particular respect to natural gas. Patterson v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 305 U.S. 376, 59 S.Ct. 259, 83 L.Ed. 231; Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court, 284 U.S. 8, 52 S.Ct. 103, 76 L.Ed. 136; Walls v. Midland Carbon Co., 2......
-
LOCAL LAND USE REGULATION OF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
...[109] Marrs. 32 F.2d at 139. [110] Patterson v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 1938 OK 138, 182 Okla. 155, 77 P.2d 83, appeal dismissed, 305 U.S. 376 (1939). [111] 77 P.2d at 89. The court also relied on a Texas Supreme Court decision finding the Dallas zoning ordinance constitutional, using the ......
-
Correlative Rights and Limited Common Property in the Pore Space: A Response to the Challenge of Subsurface Trespass in Carbon Capture and Sequestration
...563, 573 (1929); Patterson v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 77 P.2d 83 (Okla. 1938), appeal dismissed , Patterson v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 305 U.S. 376 (1939); Bruce M. Kramer, Compulsory Pooling and Unitization With an Emphasis on the Statutory and Common Law of the Eastern United States , 2......
-
CHAPTER 1 POOLING AND UNITIZATION: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND AN INTRODUCTION TO BASIC VOCABULARY
...See e.g., Hunter v. Justice's Court, note 71 supra; Patterson v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 182 Okla. 155, 77 P.2d 83 (1938), app. dism'd, 305 U.S. 376 (1939). See generally, Clyde, Problems of Regulatory Agencies in Administering Conservation Statutes--With Particular Reference to Well Spaci......
-
CHAPTER 1 BASIC CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES AND BASIC DEFINITIONS
...Oil Co., 211 Cal. 93, 294 P. 717 (1930). [47] See Patterson v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 182 Okla. 155, 77 P.2d 83 (1938), appeal dism'd, 305 U.S. 376 (1939); Brown v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 126 Tex. 296, 83 S.W.2d 935, 87 S.W.2d 1069 (1935). [48] Sullivan, Note 3 supra at 338-39. Gas-oi......