Edgar v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.

• Decision Date: 04 December 1935
• Docket Number: No. 8292.,8292.
• Citation: 90 S.W.2d 656
• Parties: EDGAR et al. v. STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO. et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

90 S.W.2d 656

EDGAR et al. v. STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO. et al.

No. 8292.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

December 4, 1935.

On Rehearing, January 29, 1936.

Appeal from District Court, Travis County; C. A. Wheeler, Judge.

Suit by the Stanolind Oil & Gas Company and others against Joe Edgar and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

W. H. Nunn and Wilcox & Graves, all of Georgetown, for appellant Joe Edgar.

Turner, Rodgers & Winn, of Dallas, for appellees Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. and Simms Oil Co.

Greenwood, Moody & Robertson, of Austin, for appellee Magnolia Petroleum Co.

Powell, Wirtz, Rauhut & Gideon, of Austin, for appellee Tidewater Oil Co.

BAUGH, Justice.

Appeal is from a judgment of the trial court, upon an instructed verdict, setting aside a permit of the Railroad Commission authorizing Joe Edgar to drill oil well No. 3 on a 3.99-acre tract of land in Gregg county, Tex.; and permanently enjoining the operation of such well which had already been drilled under such permit. The same land is here involved that was involved in Magnolia Pet. Co. v. Edgar (Tex.Civ.App.) 62 S.W.(2d) 359. This tract runs north and south, is about 132 feet wide at the north end, about 1,600 feet long, and about 70 feet wide at the south end. Well No. 3 here involved is located 234 feet from the north end of said strip of land. Magnolia Petroleum Company owns the lease to the west of said strip, the Tidewater Oil and the Stanolind Oil own the leases to the north, and the Stanolind, the lease to the east thereof. Edgar already has two wells on said strip; one near the center, which is offset east and west by wells of the Stanolind and Magnolia, respectively, and one near the south end.

The following facts appear: In 1918, prior to the promulgation of rule 37 of the Railroad Commission, Stinchcomb and Todd became the owners of approximately 107 acres to the west of said strip, the adjoining lands to the east thereof being owned by Vivian Webb. The fence between these tracts, however, was over on the Webb land and included the strip here involved. On September 18, 1930, Stinchcomb and Todd leased their tract by metes and bounds to the Vacuum Oil Company, which assigned it to the Magnolia. On June 9, 1931, Stinchcomb and Todd, claiming limitation title to the strip of land here involved, leased it to Edgar, and limitation title to said strip was awarded to them by decree of the district court of Gregg county in 1932. We do not understand it to be controverted that Stinchcomb and Todd's adverse use and occupancy of said strip of land had ripened into a good limitation title prior to their lease of September 18, 1930, to the Vacuum Oil Company, though it was not decreed to them by judgment until 1932.

After procuring two wells on said strip of land, Edgar applied to the Railroad Commission for a permit to drill well No. 3, here involved. This application was by the commission refused on October 21, 1933. Edgar thereupon filed suit in the district court of Travis county to enjoin the commission from interfering with his drilling said well No. 3. That suit was filed on April 6, 1934. While that suit was pending, Edgar filed a motion with the Railroad Commission for a rehearing of his application. That motion was heard by the commission, and on September 24, 1934, the Railroad Commission, by what it designated as an amended order, granted Edgar a permit to drill said well No. 3. Thereafter Edgar dismissed his suit in the district court of Travis county, obviously on the assumption that he had, after he had filed it, obtained from the Railroad Commission the relief he had theretofore invoked the jurisdiction of the district court to obtain.

Thereupon the appellees herein brought this suit to annul the so-called "amended order" of the commission dated September 24, 1934, and to restrain the operation by appellant of the well drilled thereunder. We deem it unnecessary to set out in detail the grounds of attack on said order, and urged here as sufficient to sustain the trial court's judgment. They are, among others, that the operation of said well will, in the various ways urged, cause waste in violation of the conservation laws of the state.

From the facts above recited it is manifest, and has been expressly so held, that while the suit involving the subject-matter of this controversy was pending in the district court of Travis county, the Railroad Commission lost jurisdiction of its order of October 21, 1933. No change of conditions after its entry is shown in the instant case, and the order of the commission dated September 24, 1934, and herein attacked, was void for want of jurisdiction in the commission over the subject-matter thereof. Stewart v. Smith (Tex.Sup.) 83 S.W.(2d) 945.

In addition to this, however, the judgment of the trial court should be sustained on the ground that the lease by Stinchcomb and Todd of the 107 acres adjoining the strip here involved to the Vacuum Oil Company on September 18, 1930, and that to Edgar of said strip on June 9, 1931, constituted a voluntary segregation by them of such strip from a larger contiguous tract capable of development as a whole, and one which, because of its shape, would necessarily require an exception to rule 37 in order to develop it for oil. This they were not authorized under the now well-settled rule to do; and Edgar could secure no greater right under the law than that vested in his lessors. Brown v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co. (Tex.Sup.) 83 S.W.(2d) 935, 99 A.L.R. 1107; Stewart v. Smith, supra; Sun Oil Co. v. Railroad Commission (Tex.Civ.App.) 68 S.W.(2d) 609; Smith v. Stewart (Tex. Civ.App.) 68 S.W.(2d) 627 (involving a similar strip of land claimed by limitation), affirmed by Supreme Court in 83 S.W.(2d) 945. Appellant...