Railroad Commission v. Shell Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 16 September 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 9226.,9226. |
| Citation | 164 S.W.2d 773 |
| Parties | RAILROAD COMMISSION et al. v. SHELL OIL CO., Inc. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from One Hundred Twenty-Sixth District Court, Travis County; Roy C. Archer, Judge.
Suit by the Shell Oil Company, Incorporated, to set aside a permit granted by the Railroad Commission of Texas, to another corporation to drill an oil well as an exception to spacing rule 37. From a judgment cancelling the permit, the Railroad Commission of Texas and another appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., and Ed Roy Simmons and Geo. W. Barcus, Asst. Attys. Gen., all of Austin, Texas, for appellant Railroad Commission of Texas.
W. Edward Lee, of Tyler, for appellant Roosth & Genecov Production Co.
R. H. Whilden, of Houston and Greenwood, Moody & Robertson, and J. B. Robertson, all of Austin, for appellee.
Rule 37 case. The appeal is from a final judgment cancelling a permit to drill a seventh well upon a 7.39-acre tract in the East Texas Oil Field, and enjoining production thereunder. The permit was granted as an exception to Rule 37 in order to prevent confiscation and to prevent waste; but it was conceded that the permit could not be upheld upon the confiscation theory, and that only the issue of waste was involved. All parties defendant have appealed.
Appellant Roosth & Genecov Production Company (called herein the corporation), the only defendant below except the Railroad Commission and its members, assigns error upon the overruling of its plea in abatement asserting a defect of necessary parties defendant. The pertinent facts, as shown by the record, are these: The application was upon a printed form of the Commission. Under the heading, "Name of company or operator," is the following:
This is all the application shows with reference to the lease or its ownership. Whether Roosth & Genecov is a corporation or other legal entity does not appear. We assume the expression "Unit Holder Lease" is descriptive of the lease and was improperly inserted on the line for the "address". The original petition is not included in the transcript and the date suit was filed does not appear, but the original answer of the Commission was filed March 15, 1941. May 22, 1941, the corporation filed its first amended answer; and on the same day it filed its plea in abatement. Its original answer does not appear in the record. The case was tried and judgment rendered May 22, 1941. The term at which trial was had began on the third Monday in March (March 17, 1941). When the case was called for trial counsel for the corporation announced that he would file a plea in abatement, and the judgment shows the plea was overruled before announcement of ready for trial. In the first count of the plea it was alleged that: The lease was owned by 55 separate individuals whose names and residences were listed; five of whom lived in other states: one each in Chicago, Illinois; St. Louis, Missouri; Jasper, Alabama; Jackson, Tennessee; and Monroe, Michigan. The corporation owned no interest in the lease or permit; but after the permit was granted it contracted with the owners to and did drill the well "and since said time has been and is now flowing said well and making the production therefrom for the owners." The second count urged that the royalty owners (five in number who were listed as to names and residence) were necessary parties.
As to the second count: it has already been adjudicated by this court that royalty owners are not necessary parties to a suit of this character. Shell P. Corp. v. Railroad Comm., Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W. 2d 797; Railroad Comm. v. Humble O. & R. Co.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sun Oil Co. v. Potter
...presented, that royalty owners are not necessary parties to a suit involving the validity of a drilling permit. Railroad Commission v. Shell, Tex.Civ. App., 164 S.W.2d 773; Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Railroad Commission, Tex. Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d 797; Railroad Commission v. Humble Oil &......
-
In re HPGM, LLC
...189 (citing Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Peters , 323 S.W.2d 651 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1959, no writ) ; R.R. Comm'n v. Shell Oil Co., Inc. , 164 S.W.2d 773 (Tex. App.—Austin 1942, writ ref'd) ; Street v. J.I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. , 188 S.W. 725 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1916, writ ref'd) ); see Tr......
-
McDougald v. First Nat. Bank of Beaumont
...of the plea, even though it was verified, and this was not done. This required that the plea be overruled. Railroad Commission v. Shell Oil Company, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 773, writ refused. See 1 Tex.Jur. 180, 181. The appellee cites and quotes from cases other than those mentioned......
-
Byrd v. Shell Oil Co., 11392.
...underground conditions surrounding this well and the area eight times the size of the tract involved were similar"; Railroad Comm. v. Shell, Tex.Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 773; Comm. v. Shell, Tex.Civ.App., 165 S.W.2d 502, where the same conditions prevailed in the eight times area; Trapp v. Atla......