C. C. Julian Oil & Royalties Co. v. Capshaw

• Decision Date: 14 October 1930
• Docket Number: Case Number: 21640
• Citation: 1930 OK 452,292 P. 841,145 Okla. 237
• Parties: C. C. JULIAN OIL & ROYALTIES CO. v. CAPSHAW et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1930 OK 452

292 P. 841

145 Okla. 237

C. C. JULIAN OIL & ROYALTIES CO. v. CAPSHAW et al.

Case Number: 21640

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: October 14, 1930

Syllabus

¶0 1. Statutes--Subjects and Titles--Constitutional Requirement--Act Embracing but One General Subject.

Section 57, art. 5, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, providing every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, is satisfied if the act has but one general subject and that is fairly indicated by the title. It may have many details, but if they all relate to the same general subject or object, they are properly included therein. The purpose of this provision of the Constitution was to forbid the Legislature from embracing in any one act two or more unconnected subjects. Oklahoma Light & Power Co. v. Corporation Commission, 96 Okla. 19, 220 P. 54.

2. Oil and Gas--Statute Empowering Corporation Commission to Prevent Waste of Crude Oil Held not Unconstitutional nor Void for Uncertainty.

Chapter 25, Session Laws 1915, conferring upon the Corporation Commission the power to make rules and regulations to prevent the waste of crude oil and leaving to that body the power to determine what constitutes waste, is not such a delegation of power to the Commission as to render the said act unconstitutional and is not invalid for uncertainty.

3. Same--Legislation Within Police Power of State.

Under the police power of the state, the Legislature may regulate and restrict the use and enjoyment of landowners of the natural resources of the state, such as oil, so as to protect it from waste, and prevent the infringement of the rights of others. Such legislation does not infringe the constitutional inhibitions against taking of property without due process of law, denial of the equal protection of the laws, or taking property without just compensation.

4. Same--Regulation of Production from Oil Pool so as to Protect Rights of Various Landowners.

Surface owners of land have the right to drill for and reduce to possession the oil and gas beneath; but this right is to all of the owners alike, and when numerous surface owners seek to produce from a common pool, it is within the police power of the state, in keeping with due process of law, to require the several surface owners to produce same under reasonable regulations to the end that some of said owners may not take from the common source more than their equitable share.

Original action in Supreme Court by the C. C. Julian Oil & Royalties Company against Fred Capshaw et al., constituting the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma, for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the enforcement of certain orders of the Commission prohibiting the waste of oil. Writ denied.

John Head, for petitioner.

J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., W. L. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. B. Ames, of counsel), for respondents.

E. S. Ratliff, for Corporation Commission.

Geo. A. Henshaw, C. C. Herndon, J. C. Denton, W. C. Franklin, J. W. Finley, R. L. Gordon, T. J. Flannelly, Joe T. Dickerson, P. J. Carey, George Otey, Frank B. Burford, Alvin F. Molony, Harry H. Smith, W. P. Z. German, Harry O. Glasser, McKeever, Elam & Stewart, Nathan Scarritt, and E. S. Champlin, amici curiae.

GREEN, Special Justice.

¶1 This is an original proceeding in this court in which the plaintiff seeks a writ of prohibition against the Corporation Commission of the state of Oklahoma to prohibit the enforcement by said Commission of certain orders, rules, and regulations adopted by the Commission to prevent waste of crude oil in the state of Oklahoma.

¶2 The Corporation Commission, respondents herein, filed a response to which was attached copies of said orders, together with copies of the proceedings leading up to the orders themselves. In substance, the several orders and modifications thereof pleaded by respondents provide for a comprehensive plan of conservation and proration of crude oil produced in the flush and semi-flush production pools of the state, including the Oklahoma City pool, in order to prevent economic waste, underground waste, surface waste and waste incident to production of crude oil or petroleum in excess of transportation or market facilities and reasonable market demand.

¶3 The orders classify the several oil producing fields of the state and provide, among other things, that each producer in said field so classified and described might take from such pool or area only such proportion of all crude oil and petroleum that might be produced therefrom, under said order, as the production of the well or wells of such owner in said pool bore to the total potential production of such pool or area. Said orders also provide for an umpire, operator's committees, agents, etc., to carry out the provisions of said order and regulations,

¶4 The plaintiff in its petition contends that the Corporation Commission was without authority to make the orders complained of, in that the oil conservation laws of the state of Oklahoma did not confer such authority upon it; and second, if it should be held that such authority was conferred or attempted to be conferred under said conservation laws, that the same was violative of the state and federal Constitution, and in its brief states its contention as follows:

"(1) The law itself is unconstitutional.

"(2) Many provisions of the law are unconstitutional.

"(3) The act itself, even if valid in all its provisions, does not confer the authority attempted to be exercised.

"(4) The orders go far beyond the provisions of the law, and to such extent are invalid.

"(5) The act itself says the Commission shall prevent unreasonable discrimination in favor of one common source of supply as against another. The orders are discriminatory and therefore void."

¶5 The applicable sections of the statute involved are:

"Section 7954, C. O. S. 1921: Waste prohibited. That the production of crude oil or petroleum in the state of Oklahoma, in such manner and under such conditions as to constitute waste, is hereby prohibited."

"Section 7956. Waste defined--Protection. That the term 'waste' as used herein, in addition to its ordinary meaning, shall include economic waste, underground waste, surface waste, and waste incident to the production of crude oil or petroleum in excess of transportation or marketing facilities or reasonable market demands. The Corporation Commission shall have authority to make rules and regulations for the prevention of such waste, and for the protection of all fresh water strata, and oil and gas bearing strata encountered in any well drilled for oil.

"Section 7957. Production regulated--discrimination of purchaser prohibited. That whenever the full production from any common source of supply of crude oil or petroleum in this state can only be obtained under conditions constituting waste as herein defined, then any person, firm or corporation, having the right to drill into and produce oil from any such common source of supply may take therefrom only such proportion of all crude oil and petroleum that may be produced therefrom, without waste, as the production of the well or wells of any such person, firm or corporation, bears to the total production of such common source of supply. The Corporation Commission is authorized to so regulate the taking of crude oil or petroleum from any or all such common sources of supply, within the state of Oklahoma, as to prevent the inequitable or unfair taking from a common source of supply of such crude oil or petroleum, by any person, firm, or corporation, and to prevent unreasonable discrimination in favor of any one such common source of supply as against another."

"Section 7959: Enforcement of act--hearings before Corporation Commission. That any person, firm or corporation, or the Attorney General on behalf of the state, may institute proceedings before the Corporation Commission, or apply for a hearing before said Commission, upon any question relating to the enforcement of this act, and jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon said Commission to hear and determine the same. Said Commission shall set a time and place, when and where such hearing shall be had and give reasonable notice thereof to all persons or classes interested therein, by publication in some newspaper or newspapers, having general circulation in the state, and in addition thereto, shall cause reasonable notice in writing to be served personally on any person firm, or corporation complained against. In the exercise and enforcement of such jurisdiction, said Commission is authorized to determine any question or fact, arising hereunder, and to summon witnesses, make ancillary orders, and use mesne and final process, including inspection and punishment as for contempt, analogous to proceedings under its control over public service corporations, as now provided by law."

¶6 It is first contended that the act of the Legislature in question is invalid for the reason it is in conflict with section 57 of article 5 of the Constitution of Oklahoma, which provides that every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. This act is not in conflict with said section, because the act does embrace but one subject to wit, prevention of waste of oil, and said subject is clearly expressed in the title. This section was construed in Ex parte Ambler, 11 Okla. Crim. 449, 148 P. 1061; Oklahoma Light & Power Co. v. Corporation Commission, 96 Okla. 19, 220 P. 54; Griffin v. Thomas, 86 Okla. 70, 206 P. 604. Under the authorities above cited, it was held that if the act has but one general subject that is fairly indicated by the title, it may have many details, but if they all relate to the same general subject or object they are properly included therein. The purpose of this provision of the Constitution was to forbid the Legislature from embracing in any one act two or more unconnected subjects.

¶7 It is next contended that ...