Railroad Commission v. Mackhank Petroleum Co.
| Decision Date | 14 November 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. A-541.,A-541. |
| Citation | 190 S.W.2d 802 |
| Parties | RAILROAD COMMISSION et al. v. MACKHANK PETROLEUM CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Grover Sellers, Atty. Gen., Geo. W. Barcus, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Fagan Dickson, former Atty. Gen., of Austin, for petitioner Railroad Commission.
Black, Graves & Stayton and John W. Stayton, all of Austin, for petitioner W. R. R. Oil Co.
Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Francis, Raybourne Thompson, and Chas. I. Francis, all of Houston, for respondent.
John A. Rauhut, of Austin, amicus curiae.
Mackhand Petroleum Company, respondent, brought this action against the Railroad Commission to set aside and cancel certain named orders entered by the Commission prorating the production of oil in the New Refugio Field in Refugio County. W. R. R. Oil Company, an operator in the field, intervened, assuming the status of a defendant. All of the orders attacked by respondent were set aside and cancelled by the trial court. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and rendered the trial court's judgment in part and affirmed it in part. 186 S.W.2d 351.
The basic order under attack allocates the oil allowable in the field on a per well basis of 57 barrels of oil per well per day with seven shutdown days per month. This order was set aside and cancelled by the trial court, but its judgment in that regard was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals and judgment rendered validating the order. The Commission by special order granted exemptions from its general shutdown order to two wells owned by W. R. R. Oil Company. Its order in that regard was also set aside and cancelled by the trial court and the Commission was enjoined from issuing similar orders in the future. That part of the trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals.
The particular orders under review cover designated periods of time which have long since terminated. But the case appears not to be moot, for the judgment not only cancelled those orders but went further and permanently enjoined the Commission from enforcing in the future, as against respondent's wells, like orders based on the same method of allocation and the same or similar exemptions from shutdown orders.
The Commission and W. R. R. Oil Company have filed a joint application for writ of error attacking only that part of the trial court's judgment, affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, cancelling the exemption order. Respondent Mackhank Petroleum Company filed no application for writ of error, but in oral argument on submission and in its brief filed here it presses the proposition that the granting of the application of petitioners brought the whole case to this court, and that as a consequence "this court has not only the right but the duty also to determine whether or not the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals was correct in reversing and rendering that part of the case which related to the general field proration order based on a per well allowable." It calls upon us to reverse a part of the judgment of that court without our having before us any application for writ of error containing an assignment of error challenging its correctness. We are not authorized to do this. The Supreme Court is not clothed with supervisory powers over courts of civil appeals, but in cases which reach it by writ of error its review is limited to questions of law raised by assignments in the application. Rule 476, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, provides, in part, "Trials in the Supreme Court shall be only upon the questions of law raised by the assignments of error in the application for writ of error, * * *." That rule sanctions a practice long obtaining in this court. The latest expressions of this court upon the question coming to our notice were made in Vanover v. Henwood, 136 Tex. 348, 150...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trapp v. Shell Oil Co.
...and Trem Carr. It may be appropriate to here observe that this Court handed down the opinion in the case of Railroad Commission v. Mackhank Petroleum Co., 190 S.W.2d 802, on November 14, 1945, without a dissent subsequent to all of the hereinbefore mentioned Thus it is readily seen that the......
-
Atlantic Refining Co. v. Railroad Com'n of Texas, A-7355
...in exploration and drilling operations, such producers should not be heard to complain. In the case of Railroad Commission v. Mackhank Petroleum Co., Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 351, cited by appellee, the court held that under the field spacing pattern the complaining party could drill additi......
-
Tgs-Nopec Geophysical Co. v. Combs
...the meaning of the tax code does not make the method chosen by the Comptroller unreasonable. See Railroad Comm'n v. Mackhank Petroleum Co., 144 Tex. 393, 190 S.W.2d 802, 804 (1945) ("This Court cannot strike down an administrative order on the ground that ... a more equitable one could be e......
-
Halbouty v. Railroad Commission, A-8200
...would seem that his allowable can not be cut down to the point where his well would no longer produce, (See Railroad Commission v. Mackhank, Tex.Sup. (144 Tex. 393), 190 S.W.2d 802) nor below the point where it could not be drilled and operated at a reasonable profit.' (No authority is cite......