Danciger Oil & Refining Co. v. Railroad Commission, Motion No. 10530; No. 6283.
| Decision Date | 13 February 1933 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 10530; No. 6283. |
| Citation | 56 S.W.2d 1075 |
| Parties | DANCIGER OIL & REFINING CO. OF TEXAS v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
S. A. L. Morgan and Morgan, Culton, Morgan & Britain, all of Amarillo, I. J. Ringolsky and Ringolsky, Boatright & Jacobs, all of Kansas City, Mo., and Chas. L. Black and Black & Graves, all of Austin, for plaintiff in error.
James V. Allred, Atty. Gen., Fred Upchurch and Maurice Cheek, Asst. Attys. Gen., Hines H. Baker, of Houston, Robert E. Hardwicke, of Fort Worth, Marion S. Church, of Dallas, and John E. Kilgore, of Wichita Falls, for defendants in error.
Defendants in error have filed a motion to dismiss the writ of error in this case on the ground that the questions presented for decision are now moot.
This suit involves an attack made by plaintiff in error on a proration order of the Railroad Commission of Texas promulgated under the terms of the oil conservation statutes as they existed prior to August, 1931. The order sought to be annulled expired by its own terms subsequent to the rendition of the judgment in this case. In addition to this, the conservation statutes authorizing the Railroad Commission to regulate the production of oil in Texas have been materially changed since the judgment was rendered by the district court, from which the appeal was taken. Acts Fourth Called Session, 42d Legislature (1932) c. 2, p. 3 (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. arts. 6014, 6014a, 6029, 6048c, §§ 5, 7, 8, 6049d).
Courts have sometimes decided questions involving attacks upon short time orders of commissions after the same have expired by their own terms. Such cases were decided on the theory that a decision of the question as to the power of the tribunal to make the order involved might be of material value in the promulgation of similar orders in the future, and for the further reason that the person against whom such order was made might be subjected to liability in subsequent proceedings if the legality of the order were not determined. Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U. S. 433, 31 S. Ct. 288, 55 L. Ed. 283; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burford v. Sun Oil Co Sun Oil Co v. Burford
... ... Page 317 ... Texas Railroad Commission granting the petitioner Burford a ... 576, 44 L.Ed. 729; Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission, 286 U.S. 210, 52 ... 576, 53 S.Ct. 223, 77 L.Ed. 505, and Danciger Oil and Refining Co. v. Railroad Commission, ... state, as clear an example of waste motion as can be imagined. 23 The federal court has ... ...
-
Carrillo v. State
...See Lacoste v. Duffy, 49 Tex. 767 (1878); McWhorter v. Northcutt, 94 Tex. 86, 58 S.W. 720 (1900); Danciger Oil & Refining Co. v. Railroad Commission, 122 Tex. 243, 56 S.W.2d 1075 (1933); Tarpley v. Epperson, 125 Tex. 63, 79 S.W.2d 1081 (1935); Texas & N.O.R. Co. v. Priddie, 127 Tex. 629, 95......
-
Texas Quarter Horse Ass'n v. Am. Legion Dep't of Tex.
...Foundries, Inc., 248 S.W.2d at 461 (citing Freeman v. Burrows, 141 Tex. 318, 171 S.W.2d 863 (1943) ; Danciger Oil & Ref. Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 122 Tex. 243, 56 S.W.2d 1075 (1933) ; McWhorter v. Northcutt, 94 Tex. 86, 58 S.W. 720 (1900) ). Accord, e.g., Speer, 847 S.W.2d at 228–29 ; Raborn......
-
Corzelius v. Harrell
...respects, the Commission under this law had the right to enter a new order. In the case of Danciger Oil & Refining Co. of Texas v. Railroad Commission of Texas, 122 Tex. 243, 56 S.W.2d 1075, in passing upon the questions involved in that case as being moot, Judge Leddy, writing the opinion ......