Alpha Petroleum Co. v. Terrell, 1630-6363; Motion No. 10611.
Decision Date | 13 February 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 1630-6363; Motion No. 10611.,1630-6363; Motion No. 10611. |
Parties | ALPHA PETROLEUM CO. v. TERRELL et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Wm. N. Bonner and V. Childress, both of Wichita Falls, and Paul D. Page, Jr., John T. Garrison, Lawrence Lipper, William F. Grimes, Leon Sonfield, and Sewell, Taylor, Morris & Garwood, all of Houston, for plaintiff in error.
James V. Allred, Atty. Gen., and Maurice Cheek, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John C. Jackson, of Houston, for defendants in error.
This suit was instituted in the district court of Montgomery county, Tex., by Alpha Petroleum Company, a Texas corporation, against the Texas Railroad Commission and certain other parties, to restrain the enforcement against it of the following two oil and gas rules of the Railroad Commission:
The above is known as rule 24.
The petition prays for the issuance of temporary restraining orders or temporary injunctions, prohibitory or mandatory, and in either case to be made permanent on final hearing, to the end that plaintiff may be permitted to produce and transport its oil as heretofore without injury to its wells, and to the end that it may be permitted to drill at least one additional well on one of its leases, and that defendants and all of them be prohibited from instituting any suit against the plaintiffs for penalties, or for other relief of any character, other than to answer this suit, etc.
On September 23, 1932, the plaintiff's petition was presented to the Honorable S. A. McCall, judge of said district court, who, in chambers, and without notice or hearing, indorsed thereon the following order:
Bond was given as provided by the above order, and writ of injunction issued. The writ enjoined the Railroad Commission from enforcing only the rule first above quoted, known as rule 24, "until the further order of said court."
We here copy the following from the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burford v. Sun Oil Co Sun Oil Co v. Burford
...under discussion was incorporated in the act for the express purpose of avoiding such confusion.' Alpha Petroleum Co. v. Terrell et al., 122 Tex. 257, 273, 59 S.W.2d 364, 371. Time and experience, say the Texas courts, have shown the wisdom of this rule.20 Concentration of judicial supervis......
-
Trapp v. Shell Oil Co.
...statutory action to enforce a right which exists only by statute, and not under the Constitution or at common law. Alpha Petroleum Co. v. Terrell, 122 Tex. 257, 59 S.W.2d 364; Id., 122 Tex. 257, 59 S.W.2d 372. It is the undoubted intention of the statutes under discussion to clothe the dist......
-
Lone Star Gas Co. v. State, 7664.
...prescribe the exclusive statutory judicial remedy for all persons and parties who wish to attack this order. Alpha Pet. Co. v. Terrell et al., 122 Tex. 257, 59 S.W.2d 364, 59 S.W.2d Since this case must be remanded to the district court for another trial, we deem it proper to make the follo......
-
S.C. v. M.B.
...The district court will be free to examine this question on remand.1 Tex. Fam. Code § 9.203(a).2 Alpha Petroleum Co. v. Terrell , 122 Tex. 257, 59 S.W.2d 364, 368 (Tex. [Comm'n Op.] 1933), abrogated on other grounds by Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi , 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) ; see also Valdez......