Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Lasseter, 8627.
| Decision Date | 04 May 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 8627.,8627. |
| Parties | HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. v. LASSETER et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Ninety-Eighth District, Travis County; J. D. Moore, Judge.
Suit by the Humble Oil & Refining Company against H. E. Lasseter and others to set aside an order of the Railroad Commission granting a permit to H. E. Lasseter to drill an oil well. From an interlocutory order refusing a temporary injunction restraining the drilling of and production from an oil well upon a 1.41-acre subdivision of a 32.45-acre oil lease in the East Texas Oil Field, the Humble Oil & Refining Company appeals.
Order affirmed.
R. E. Seagler, Rex G. Baker, and Powell, Wirtz, Rauhut & Gideon, all of Houston, for appellant.
Willis E. Gresham, of Austin, and Lasseter, Simpson & Spruiell, of Tyler, for appellees.
This is a Rule 37 case. The appeal is from an interlocutory order refusing a temporary injunction restraining the drilling of and production from an oil well upon a 1.41-acre subdivision of a 32.45-acre oil lease in the East Texas Oil field, in a suit by the Humble to set aside an order of the Commission granting a permit to Lasseter to drill the well.
The permit was granted "to protect vested rights"; and the hearing upon the application for temporary injunction was confined to the issue of Lasseter's right to drill the well upon the 1.41-acre tract independently of the 32.45-acre tract from which it had been segregated; the Humble taking the view that the segregation was a voluntary one and therefore no vested rights were involved; and Lasseter, on the other hand, contending that the segregation was involuntary since it was the result of a court action in partition, although begun and concluded subsequently to the application of Rule 37 to the East Texas field. Under the doctrine repeatedly announced by this court, the segregation was clearly voluntary. However, since the appeal is from an interlocutory order only, and since we are holding upon another ground that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing the temporary injunction, we pretermit detailed discussion of the voluntary segregation issue.
We regard the appeal as ruled by the recent holding of the Commission of Appeals in its adopted opinion in the Century case (Railroad Commission v. Magnolia Pet. Co., 109 S.W.2d 967). While that opinion announced no general rule applicable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Railroad Commission v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.
...Case (Railroad Commission v. Magnolia P. Co., 130 Tex. 484, 109 S.W.2d 967), as interpreted by this court in the Lasseter Case, Humble O. & R. Co. v. Lasseter, 120 S.W.2d 541. The evidence conclusively showed that drilling the well not only was not necessary to prevent waste, but would tend......
-
Railroad Commission v. Miller
...holding in the Century case (Railroad Comm. v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 130 Tex. 484, 109 S.W.2d 967) as interpreted by this court in the Lasseter case (Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Lasseter, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 541, error dismissed), and later in Com. v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., Tex.Civ......
-
Railroad Commission v. Williams
...of such larger tract (the reconstructed tract) to recover their fair share of the oil thereunder in place.' Humber Oil & Ref. Co. v. Lasseter, Tex.Civ.App.1938, 120 S.W.2d 541, 542 (error dismissed). In this case none was needed to protect the owners, H. P. and his wife, because they were a......
-
Buckley v. Atlantic Refining Co.
...from which it had been detached. Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Potter, Tex.Civ.App., 143 S.W.2d 135; Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Lassester, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 541, 542. In the latter case Chief Justice McClendon speaking for the Austin Court of Civil Appeals "Where, independen......