Railroad Commission of Tex. v. Roberts, 10790

Decision Date15 February 1960
Docket NumberNo. 10790,10790
Citation332 S.W.2d 745
PartiesRAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS et al., Relators, v. Jack ROBERTS, District Judge, et al., Respondents.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Will Wilson, Atty. Ge., Linward Shivers, John Wildenthal, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Black & Stayton, Austin, for relators.

McKay & Avery, Austin, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

On February 11, 1960, this Court granted a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of prohibition against Honorable Jack Roberts, Judge of the District Court of Travis County, Texas, 126th Judicial District and Roy R. Gardner, the motion having been made by the Railroad Commission of Texas. After hearing on the same date we entered an order and judgment conditionally granting the writ of prohibition sought by relators.

We will now state the circumstances under which our action was taken and the reasons therefor.

The facts as reflected by the petition are:

Final judgment was rendered in Cause No. 116,411, styled Roy R. Gardner, plaintiff, against the Railroad Commission of Texas et al., defendants, by the 126th Judicial District Court of Travis County on February 3, 1960 granting Roy R. Gardner a permanent injunction by which the Court set aside and held invalid an order of the Railroad Commission of Texas merging the Bruce-Flo (ES) Field, Matagorda County, Texas (in which Gardner's gas well, identified as his Gardner-Lowe No. 1 Beaverson, produces) with the Palacios (Frio E Sand) Field, Matagorda County, Texas, and enjoining the Railroad Commission of Texas and other defendants from attempting to enforce such order, from which judgment we quote the following:

'And, it further appearing to the Court that the status quo of the parties, just prior to the Commission action complained of and as of this time, is one by which plaintiff was producting his gas well under and by virtue of Statewide Rules 24 and 25, and not under and by virtue of the filed rules of the Palacios (Frio 'E' Sand) Field, and it also appearing, and the Court finding, that the Commission action seeking to apply said filed rules to plaintiff's gas well, as evidence by the instruments of December 15th, 1959 and December 30th, 1959 (herein more specifically described) is illegal, null and void and that a permanent injunction should issue, * * *'

This judgment also recites that the Railroad Commission of Texas, its members and intervenors 'duly and timely excepted and gave notice of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District at Austin.'

On February 9, 1960, the Railroad Commission was served with the following papers in said Cause No. 116,411:

Plaintiff's motion for a partial new trial upon the matter of plaintiff's right to a temporary injunction and request that the judgment be reformed to grant a temporary injunction.

Plaintiff's petition and motion for auxiliary injunctive relief.

Ancillary temporary restraining order, signed by the Honorable Jack Roberts, Judge, 126th District Court, Travis County, Texas, on February, 8, 1960.

The temporary restraining order issued by Honorable Jack Roberts, Judge, on February 8, 1960, is copied in full:

'No. 116,411

Roy R. Gardner, Plaintiff

v.

The Railroad Commission of Texas et al,

Plaintiffs

In the 126th District Court of Travis County Texas

Ancillary Temporary Restraining Order

'On this day, plaintiff having filed herein his motion and request for auxiliary or ancillary injunctive relief, and it appearing to the Court that the Court has entered a final judgment herein in behalf of plaintiff under date of February 3, 1960, to which judgment defendants have excepted and given notice of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas; and it further appearing that plaintiff has filed a motion for a partial rehearing or new trial upon the right to injunctive relief, upon plaintiff's prayer therefor as contained in his petition, which motion has been timely filed herein less than ten (10) days following the entry of the Court's judgment herein, and it further appearing that this controversy is still pending before the Court, and that defendants, the Railroad Commission of Texas and its members, Ernest O. Thompson, Olin Culberson and William J. Murray, Jr., have, by their action described and complained of in plaintiff's verified request for additional injunctive relief, attempted to assume jurisdiction over the subject matter of this controversy, to-wit, the Commission's letter order of December 15, 1959, and its so-called 'order' of December 30, 1959, (by which the Commission seeks to merge the Bruce-Flo (E-3) Field with the Palacios (Frio 'E' Sand) Field, Matagorda County, Texas) and have, as of the 8th day of February, 1960, entered, issued and promulgated a directive, order, or ruling described as being a Railroad Commission of Texas letter order over the signature of Chief Gas Engineer, John S. Cameron, Jr. and addressed to plaintiff and informing plaintiff that as of February 3, 1960, the said Commission has placed plaintiff's Beaverson No. 1 gas well in the Palacios (Frio 'E' Sand) Field, and ordering and directing him to file various documents, and claiming as authority therefor, a quotation from a letter signed by an Assistant Attorney General, and informing plaintiff, in effect, that he must produce by virtue of said field rules and it further appearing to this Court that such action, order and attempt by the defendant Commission and its members and Engineer is an attempt to re-assert jurisdiction over the subject matter of this controversy, and, if allowed to stand, will disturb the status quo of the parties, which status quo has heretofore been found and adjudged by the Court to be that relation and condition by virtue of which plaintiff produces his gas well under the authority of Railroad Commission of Texas Statewide Rules 24 and 25; and this matter being before the Court, and it appearing that any further or additional notice to defendant Commission and its members is not necessary, and that immediate and irreparable loss and damage will result to plaintiff before additional notice and citation can be served and a hearing had thereon unless his application for a temporary restraining order is granted and said defendants be forthwith restrained; and the Court further finding that such temporary restraining order should be granted herein to prevent such immediate and irreparable injury, losses and damage, and to maintain the status quo, it appearing that unless such injunction is granted the Commission will re-assert and enforce its jurisdiction and its void orders against plaintiff with the result that plaintiff's well, producing gas by virtue of said Statewide Rules 24 and 25, will be greatly curtailed, with loss to plaintiff of his rights to lawful production of gas and of distillate, which loss shall be in the approximate amount of 90% of his present production, with the result that plaintiff will lose some $700.00 per day, and for which damage and injury plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law; and it further appearing that this injunction is necessary to protect the subject matter of the controversy and preserve the jurisdiction of the courts;

'It is therefore Ordered, that the defendants, the Railroad Commission of Texas, its members, Ernest O. Thompson, Olin Culberson, William J. Murray, Jr., and their engineers, including John S. Cameron, Jr., Chief Gas Engineer, their agents, employees, District Supervisors and attorneys be, and they are hereby, temporarily enjoined and restrained from placing in effect and enforcing, and from keeping in effect and force and from attempting to enforce, by any means, as pertains to plaintiff, his co-owners and the Gardner-Lowe Beaverson, et al. Well No. 1, (identified as producing by pipe line connection with Tennessee Gas Transmission Company) that certain Commission action and order of December 15, 1959, and that certain alleged order of December 30, 1959, and that certain letter order of February 8, 1960, by virtue of which said Commission and said persons have attempted to merge the Bruce-Flo (E-3) Field with the Palacios (Frio 'E' Sand) Field, Matagorda County, Texas, and apply the field rules thereof to the Bruce-Flo Field and to plaintiff's Beaverson No. 1 well and said Commission and each and all of said persons are directed to cease and desist any action of any kind which will require plaintiff to produce by virtue of said field rules and which will require plaintiff to produce on any basis other than the basis of Railroad Commission of Texas Statewide Rules Nos. 24 and 25, which above orders and action of the Commission, here enjoined, has been entered and taken in the Commission's Oil and Gas Docket under various captions and references to the application of Christie, Mitchell and Mitchell to merge said fields, and under caption or reference to a merger of said fields.

'Said temporary restraining order shall remain in full force and effect until 10 o'clock A.M. on the 15th day of February, 1960, at which time defendants shall appear and show cause why a temporary injunction as prayed for in said petition should not be granted; on which matter, and at said time, hearing will be held at the 126th District Courtroom, Travis County Courthouse, Austin, Travis County, Texas.

'Let proper writs issue by the Clerk to enforce this Order.

'The Court here now fixes bond of plaintiff for issuance of this temporary restraining order in the sum of $1000.00 payable to the defendant Commission and its members, the persons who may suffer damages by reason of violation of said order complained of, such bond to be with proper surety, approved and conditioned as by law required; said temporary restraining order to be effective immediately upon filing of such bond with the Clerk of this Court.

'Done and ordered entered of record this 8 day of February, 1960, at 5:07 o'clock P.M., at Austin, Travis...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Ammex Warehouse Co. v. Archer, A-10117
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • July 29, 1964
    ...v. Jones, District Judge, supra. In so doing the Court relied primarily upon its prior decision rendered in Railroad Commission of Texas v. Roberts, Tex.Civ.App., 332 S.W.2d 745, original proceeding. (1960), wherein it was said '(W)e are convinced that the effect of the temporary restrainin......
  • Tex. Health & Human Servs. Comm'n v. Advocates for Patient Access, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 26, 2013
    ...supersedeas rights—Texas Liquor Control Bd. v. Jones, 378 S.W.2d 898 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1964, orig. proceeding), and Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Roberts, 332 S.W.2d 745 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1960, orig. proceeding). Those cases, however, are distinguishable based on their procedural posture......
  • Gardner v. Railroad Commission
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • March 23, 1960
    ...Judge Roberts. On February 11, 1960, the Court of Civil Appeals granted the writ of prohibition. Its opinion, Railroad Commission of Texas v. Roberts, 332 S.W.2d 745, sets out at length the facts and various orders above described. That court concluded that Judge Roberts' judgment of Februa......
  • Spiller v. Sherrill, 15390
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 1974
    ...be stayed. A comprehensive discussion of the effect of the filing of a supersedeas bond is found in the case of Railroad Commission of Texas v. Roberts, 332 S.W.2d 745 (Tex.Civ.App .--Austin 1960, no writ). In that case a final judgment was rendered against the Railroad Commission granting ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 8 Staying Execution and Superseding the Judgment
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Practitioner's Guide to Civil Appeals in Texas
    • Invalid date
    ...98 (Tex. 1954).[117] Holder v. Holder, 582 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1979, no writ).[118] Railroad Comm'n v. Roberts, 332 S.W.2d 745, 749 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1960, no writ).[119] Public Utilities Comm'n v. Coalition for Affordable Utility Rates, 776 S.W.2d 221, 222 (Tex. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT