Bennett v. Sun Oil Co., 6728.

• Decision Date: 12 June 1935
• Docket Number: No. 6728.,6728.
• Citation: 84 S.W.2d 693
• Parties: BENNETT et al. v. SUN OIL CO.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

84 S.W.2d 693

BENNETT et al. v. SUN OIL CO.

No. 6728.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 12, 1935.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Third Supreme Judicial District.

Suit by the Sun Oil Company against H. D. Bennett, the Railroad Commission of Texas, and others. An order denying plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction against defendants Bennett and others and to set aside an order of the Railroad Commission granting its codefendants permits to drill oil wells on certain land was reversed and a judgment granting an injunction pending trial of the case on its merits granted by the Court of Civil Appeals [68 S.W.(2d) 609], and defendants bring error.

Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.

Ramey, Calhoun & Marsh and Pace & Goens, all of Tyler, and James V. Allred, Atty. Gen., and Maurice Cheek, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiffs in error.

T. L. Foster and J. W. Timmins, both of Dallas, Ben H. Powell and J. A. Rauhut, both of Austin, and Philip Tocker, of El Paso, for defendant in error.

Robert B. Keenan, of Tyler, amicus curiæ.

SHARP, Justice.

We quote from the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals the following: "This appeal is from an order of the district court of Travis county denying appellant's application for a temporary injunction to restrain the appellees Bennett, Ryan, and Scheultz from drilling three wells on a strip of land in Rusk county, Tex., 33 feet wide and 3,342 feet long, containing 2.59 acres, and to set aside the order of the Railroad Commission granting permits for said wells. Pending a determination of this appeal, this court entered on September 29, 1933, a temporary restraining order, restraining appellees from drilling wells Nos. 1 and 3 authorized by the Railroad Commission. This order did not, however, relate to well No. 2, near the center of the tract."

After setting out the facts relating to the partition of the principal tract out of which this small tract was carved, it was further said: "It may also be noted that a suit is now pending on appeal in the Court of Civil Appeals at Texarkana wherein appellant contends, and which contention was decided against it by the trial court in that case, that its lease from Malinda Schuler and son in fact covers the strip here in controversy. But by written agreement, and to avoid a receivership, it was agreed, among other things, that, pending the outcome of the suit, appellees, subject to appellant's right to protest their application therefor, might drill such...