Brown v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.
Decision Date | 12 June 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 6729.,6729. |
Citation | 83 S.W.2d 935 |
Parties | BROWN et al. v. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Hamilton & Hamilton, of Dallas, and James V. Allred, Atty. Gen., Maurice
Cheek, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. W. Wheeler, all of Austin, for plaintiffs in error.
E. E. Townes, Rex G. Baker, and R. E. Seagler, all of Houston, and Ben H. Powell and J. A. Rauhut, both of Austin, for defendant in error.
Moody & Robertson, of Austin, as amicus curiæ.
Robert E. Hardwicke, of Fort Worth, amicus curiæ.
The Humble Oil & Refining Company filed this suit to set aside an order of the Railroad Commission granting a permit to Mrs. Gladys McCook, guardian of the estate of Dora May Johnson, a minor, to drill an oil well on 1½ acres of land owned by the minor in Gregg county, and against C. H. Brown, lessee thereof, and O. C. Fisher, his drilling contractor, to restrain them from drilling or producing oil therefrom; and to restrain the Railroad Commission from granting any further drilling permit thereon. The district court refused such relief, and the case was appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals at Austin, and the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the injunctive relief prayed for granted by a divided court. 68 S.W.(2d) 622, 623.
We quote from the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals the following controlling facts:
The first question presented for decision, as was presented in the Court of Civil Appeals, is that the question involved here is moot. This contention is based upon an affidavit which shows that the well in question was completed and had been producing oil under such permit since June 28, 1933. The permit was granted on April 21, 1933, and a drilling contract was made on May 4, 1933, to drill the well. A suit was filed in the district court to set aside the permit on May 12, 1933, and, upon the execution of a bond, a temporary restraining order was entered on that date. This order was continued to May 31, 1933, and, upon a hearing thereof, the order was on June 1, 1933, dissolved. An appeal was taken to the Court of Civil Appeals, and on June 2, 1933, the appeal bond was filed. The Court of Civil Appeals correctly held that the case was not moot. This holding is sound, because the order of the Railroad Commission upon this question is subject to review by the courts. See articles 4662, 6453, 6049c, Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. Certainly under the state of this record the rights of the parties are not settled until the litigation has terminated. We overrule this contention.
The main question for decision here involves the construction of rule 37 of the Railroad Commission. This rule relates to the development and production of oil and gas. The discovery of oil and gas has brought for solution many complex problems. The Legislature has been frequently called upon to pass laws fixing the rights of all parties interested therein. In 1917 section 59(a), article 16, of the Constitution of Texas was adopted, and that provision requires the Legislature to pass all such laws as may be appropriate to "the conservation and development of all of the natural resources of this State." Oil and gas should be, and generally are, treated as being natural resources.
In 1899 the Legislature, clearly recognizing the public interest in oil and gas, enacted articles 6004-6007, Revised Civil Statutes 1925. These articles describe how a well shall be drilled and the precautions to be taken when drawing the casing from a well which had penetrated oil or gas bearing rocks, "in such manner as shall prevent the oil and gas from escaping therefrom." Articles 6008-6013, Vernon's Ann. Civ. St., now provide heavy penalties for failure to prevent the escape of oil and gas, and plainly recognize the rights of any citizen to take steps to compel the compliance with the law in order to restrain the waste of oil and gas.
The oil industry in this state has become stupendous. There are now many separate oil fields operated in this state, under varying conditions. Texas is now the leading state in the production of oil and in oil refineries. The handling of this giant industry and its complex problems calls for the services of trained and experienced persons. It is utterly impossible for the Legislature to meet the demands of every detail in the passage of laws relating to the production of oil and gas. The necessities of the situation require that this duty be placed upon some tribunal to carry out some just and reasonable public policy. This duty is placed on the Railroad Commission.
The basis for the power of the Railroad Commission to act is found in the Acts of the Legislature, title 102, art. 6004 et seq., Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. The Legislature has defined in plain and specific language the public policy of this state with respect to the conservation and waste of oil and gas. Article 6014, which was in force at the time the permit in this case was granted, in part reads:
The foregoing article was amended...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burford v. Sun Oil Co Sun Oil Co v. Burford
...power of the Commission to enforce Rule 37 or to make exceptions to it is seldom seriously challenged, Brown v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 126 Tex. 296, 307, 83 S.W.2d 935, 87 S.W.2d 1069, 99 A.L.R. 1107, 101 A.L.R. 1393, the validity of particular orders from the standpoint of statutory interp......
-
Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Lewellen
...laws rests with the Legislature, and that power cannot be delegated to some commission or other tribunal." Brown v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 126 Tex. 296, 83 S.W.2d 935, 941 (1935). Yet, like many truisms, these blanket pronouncements should not be read too literally. Even in a simple soc......
-
Trapp v. Shell Oil Co.
...oil and gas is a business affected with a public interest and subject to regulation by the State. Brown v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 126 Tex. 296, 83 S.W.2d 935, [1069], 99 A.L.R. 1107 ; Article 6014, R.C.S.1925, as amended. It is settled that under our oil and gas conservation statutes Ru......
-
Howell v. Union Producing Company
...the oil and gas under one\'s land by exercise of the same right of capture. Citing cases." Brown v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 1935, 126 Tex. 296, 83 S.W.2d 935, 940, 99 A.L.R. 1107, quoted, among others, in Halbouty v. Railroad Commission, 1962, 163 Tex. 417, 357 S.W.2d 364, 374, cert. den......
-
Correlative Rights and Limited Common Property in the Pore Space: A Response to the Challenge of Subsurface Trespass in Carbon Capture and Sequestration
...Agency in the Absence of Express Statutory Authorization , 28 Mont. L. Rev. 205, 209 (1966). 227. Brown v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 83 S.W.2d 935 (Tex. 1935). 228. Mobile Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc. v. State Corp. Comm’n of State of Kan., 258 Kan. 796 (Kan. 1995); Gilmore v. Oil & Gas C......
-
The rule of capture - an oil and gas perspective.
...clearly adopting the offset drilling rule as the sole remedy in boundary line drilling cases, see Brown v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 83 S.W.2d 935 (Tex. 1935) and Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. State, 231 S.W. 1088 (Tex. Comm. App. (125) Erie R. R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). (1......
-
Walking the Tightrope: Finding Balance Between Strict Nondelegation and the Administrative State through an Examination of State Experiences
...2009) (quoting Tex. Boll Weevil Eradication Found., Inc. v. Lewellen, 952 S.W.2d 454, 467 (Tex. 1997)); Brown v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 83 S. W.2d 935, 941 (Tex. 1935) (“The power to pass laws rests with the Legislature, and that power cannot be delegated to some commission or other tribuna......