Foree v. Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, 4619

• Decision Date: 06 July 1967
• Docket Number: No. 4619,4619
• Citation: 417 S.W.2d 499
• Parties: R. L. FOREE et al., Appellants, v. CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION et al., Appellees. . Waco
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 499

417 S.W.2d 499

R. L. FOREE et al., Appellants, v.CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION et al., Appellees.

No. 4619.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas Waco.

July 6, 1967.

Rehearing Denied July 27, 1967.

Billy E. Lee, Houston, John Davenport, James N. Ludlum and James Ludlum, Jr., Austin, H. Clayton May, Dallas, for appellants.

Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Searls, Raybourne Thompson, W. H. Drushel, Jr., Houston, Cable & McDaniel, John S. McDaniel, Baltimore, Md., for appellees.

OPINION

WILSON, Justice.

Summary take-nothing judgment was rendered against appellants, who summarize the allegations in their suit for damages against appellees as follows:

(1) Between October 15, 1959 and November 1, 1964, appelleeCrown Central Pipe Line Company owned pipeline facilities and the Teague Receiving Station in the Sojourner Sand Unit Field immediately adjacent to the Haskell County Regular Field where appellants' production was located.(2)AppelleeCrown Central Petroleum Corporation was a purchaser of crude oil and a producer of crude oil in both of these fields.(3)AppelleeCrown Central Pipe Line Company is a common carrier and appelleeCrown Central Petroleum Corporation is a common purchaser as those terms are defined in Title 102, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.(4)Appellees discriminated in favor of their own production and against that of appellants by purchasing their own crude oil at the lease tank batteries while purchasing appellants' crude oil at the Teague Receiving Station, the effect of which was to require appellants to transport their oil by truck from their lease tanks to the Teague Station at appellants' expense.(5)Appellees connected their wells in the Sojourner Sand Unit Field by pipeline ot the Teague Receiving Station but refused to so connect the wells of appellants, even when ordered to do so by the Railroad Commission of Texas.(6)Appellants' damages are 11 cents per barrel which they allege was the cost to them for truck transportation of their oil production to the Teague Receiving Station, which costs would not have been required if the appellee Crown Companies had treated the appellants' oil production in the same manner as appellees treated their own oil production.(7) The Railroad Commission of Texas ordered appellees to connect appellants' lease tank batteries by pipeline in a unanimous order issued on February 21, 1962, but appellees did not comply with such order.Appellants secured compliance with such order on November 1, 1964.(8) The discrimination above alleged is in violation of the statutes contained in Title 102, V.C.S., particularly Articles 6045, 6048, andSection 8 of Article 6049a thereof.

Appellees contend the summary judgment was proper because the Railroad Commission of Texas has exclusive original jurisdiction of appellants' complaints, and there is no existing Railroad Commission order finding discrimination on which appellants may base their suit .

Art. 6049a, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stat., the 'Common Purchaser Act,' empowers the Railroad Commission to establish and enforce rules governing the character of facilities to be furnished by operators of public crude petroleum storage facilities in connection with pipelines, and governing gathering and transportation of petroleum; to require common carriers to extend or enlarge their pipelines if it is found to be reasonable and required under prescribed conditions; and to prevent discrimination in purchases.Provision is made for notices and hearing.For violation of regulations and orders a monetary penalty is provided, one-half of which may be recovered for the use of any person unlawfully discriminated against .Sec. 11c of the statute provides that 'a cause of action for damages' in case of discrimination 'shall lie against said common purchaser' in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Appellees concede that only a court has...