California Co. v. State Oil & Gas Bd.
| Decision Date | 25 November 1946 |
| Docket Number | 36163. |
| Citation | 200 Miss. 824,28 So.2d 120 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | CALIFORNIA CO. v. STATE OIL & GAS BOARD et al. |
Wells Wells, Newman & Thomas and W. N. Ethridge, Jr., all of Jackson, and Engle & Laub, of Natchez, for appellant.
Heidelberg & Robers, of Hattiesburg, amici curiae.
Butler & Snow, of Jackson, for appellee.
The Suggestion of Error filed herein attacks our interpretation of the statute involved, Section 6136, Code 1942; our application of the law generally; and our failure to lay down rules of evidence and procedure to govern both in the hearing before the administrative board, and at the trial on appeal to the judicial tribunal, the circuit court. We have carefully and sedulously considered the three matters stated above, and all points made in the Suggestion of Error, and the very able and interesting briefs arguing in support of them. However, we cannot agree that we have misconstrued the statute, or that we erred in applying the law generally in the premises of this case. Compare Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Brothers Bond and Mortgage Co., 289 U.S. 266, 277, 53 S.Ct. 627, 633, 77 L.Ed 1166, 1174, 89 A.L.R. 406.
Many intriguing suggestions have been made in the briefs as to the production and introduction of evidence, and the procedure at the hearing and on the trial of cases like the one at bar. The statute does not announce complete and adequate directions as to either, and if we should do so we would violate two rules of our judicature. One, that our function is judicial and not legislative, and if we attempted the formulation of guides as suggested, we would be trespassing upon the function of the Legislature. The second is that this Court has no original but only appellate jurisdiction. Section 146, Mississippi Constitution of 1890; Brewer et al. v. Browning et al., 115 Miss. 358, 76 So. 267, 279 519, L.R.A.1918F 1185, Ann.Cas.1918B 1013. Consequently, on appeal here, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is only to review and revise judicial action of interior tribunals and such incidental jurisdiction of quasi original character as is necessary to preserve its dignity and decorum, and to give full and complete operation to its appellate powers. Brown v. Sutton, 158 Miss. 78, 121 So. 835. Where therefore, there is no ruling by the trial court by which it can be put into error, there is nothing on the particular point which we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Superior Oil Co. v. Foote
...rights of the owners in a common source of supply. In California Company v. State Oil & Gas Board, 1946, 200 Miss. 824, 27 So.2d 542, 28 So.2d 120; Id., 200 Miss. 849, 27 So.2d 548, 28 So.2d 121, this Court upheld the validity of the oil well spacing rules of the Board for the Cranfield Fie......
-
Superior Oil Co. v. Beery, 38528
... ... by the parties thereto, subject to the applicable statutes for the conservation of oil and gas and the orders, rules and regulations of the State Oil & Gas Board, promulgated and adopted pursuant to such statutes ... The appellant's lease itself did not contain a pooling or ... It cited the case of California Company v. State Oil & Gas Board, 200 Miss. 824, 27 So.2d 542, 28 So.2d 120, which held that 'the 1932 and 1936 statutes had the effect of vesting in ... ...
-
City of Meridian v. Davidson, 37905
... ... McLeod, 199 Miss. 676, 24 So.2d 319; and the principle announced, although under a different statute, in California Co. v. State Oil & Gas Board, 200 Miss. 824, 27 So.2d 542, 28 So.2d 120 and other cases defining and limiting the issue to be determined in the ... ...
-
State Ins. Commissioner v. National Bureau of Cas. Underwriters
...Rpactices Comm., 364 Mich. 495, 111 N.W.2d 790; California Co. v. State Oil and Gas Bd. (Miss. in Banc) 200 Miss. 824, 27 So.2d 542, 28 So.2d 120; Peterson v. Livestock Comm., 120 Mont. 140, 181 P.2d 152; Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Lynch, 215 Or. 523, 336 P.2d 884; Hoover Motor Express Co. ......