Spring v. Ohio Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 04 January 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 9147.,9147. |
| Citation | 108 F.2d 560 |
| Parties | SPRING v. OHIO OIL CO |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Robt. E. Cofer and John D. Cofer, both of Austin, Tex., for appellant.
William Pannill and John L. Camp, both of Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
Ohio Oil Co., appellee, brought this suit against Polk Spring, appellant, to remove a cloud on its title to section 33, Block 194, G. C. & S. F. Ry. Co. Survey in Pecos County, Texas, to quiet its possession of said land and for interlocutory and final injunctions. This appeal is from a judgment granting an interlocutory injunction.
The complaint alleged: diversity of citizenship and sufficient jurisdictional amount involved; title to the land by virtue of an oil and gas lease and various court decisions; that Spring had secured a mineral lease from the state of Texas, claimed to cover a vacancy between sections 33 and 34 of said survey, on some 22.9 acres; that no vacancy in fact exists and these 22.9 acres are located in section 33, covered by plaintiff's lease; that Spring had applied to the railroad commission of Texas for special permits to drill four wells in the area.
Spring admitted his lease and application to drill but denied the land was located within section 33. He filed a motion to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the state of Texas and certain named individuals and corporations were indispensable and necessary parties.
The District Court heard evidence on the motion to dismiss, made comprehensive findings of fact, which we need not review, overruled the plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss and granted an interlocutory injunction on bond of $25,000.
The case is not here on the merits and the sole question presented for decision is whether the District Judge abused his discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction. Lea v. Vasco Products, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 1011. Of course, in deciding that question we may consider whether the court was without jurisdiction.
In the case of Eppenauer v. Ohio Oil Co., 5 Cir., 98 F.2d 524, we considered the title of the Ohio Oil Company to section 33 and, following decisions of the Texas courts cited therein, ruled that the Ohio Oil Company's title to Section 33 had been validated by the Supreme Court of Texas and affirmed the judgment of the District Court quieting that title and ordering clouds upon it removed. If Spring were permitted to trespass on the land and drill producing wells under mere color of title from the state, it is evident Ohio Oil Co. might be irreparably damaged.
It is also clear that neither the state of Texas nor the other pa...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calcote v. Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co.
...find nothing to sustain the theory that the question of indispensable parties is not jurisdictional in diversity cases. In Spring v. Ohio Oil Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 560, the absent parties were held to be not indispensable, since no relief was sought against them and a decree could be framed......
-
Green v. Green
...of the lower courts in a case under review. Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, at page 244, 55 S.Ct. 162, 79 L.Ed. 338. In Spring v. Ohio Oil Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 560, the Ohio Oil Company brought suit against Spring to remove cloud on title, to quiet possession, and for interlocutory and f......
-
JM Fields of Anderson, Inc. v. Kroger Co.
...Inc. v. Herfort, 5 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 398; Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Callaway, 5 Cir., 1943, 135 F.2d 592; Spring v. Ohio Oil Co., 5 Cir., 1940, 108 F.2d 560. On appeal from the granting or refusal of an interlocutory injunction the inquiry is limited to the question whether the......
-
Barnwell Drilling Co. v. Sun Oil Company
...Inc. v. Herfort, 5 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 398; Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Callaway, 5 Cir., 1943, 135 F.2d 592; Spring v. Ohio Oil Co., 5 Cir., 1940, 108 F.2d 560. On appeal from the granting or refusal of an interlocutory injunction the inquiry is limited to the question whether the......