Trapp v. Shell Oil Co., 9502.

• Decision Date: 27 June 1945
• Docket Number: No. 9502.,9502.
• Citation: 189 S.W.2d 26
• Parties: TRAPP et al. v. SHELL OIL CO., Inc., et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 26

189 S.W.2d 26

TRAPP et al. v.SHELL OIL CO., Inc., et al.

No. 9502.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

June 27, 1945.

Rehearing Denied July 18, 1945.

Appeal from Fifty-Third Judicial District Court, Travis County; J. Harris Gardner, Judge.

Suit by the Shell Oil Company, Incorporated, and another against M. E. Trapp and others to set aside an order of the Railroad Commission granting defendant Trapp a permit to drill a second oil well on certain land and enjoin production under such permit.From a judgment setting aside the order and enjoining production, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Pollard, Lawrence & Blackburn, of Tyler, for appellantM. E. Trapp.

Grover Sellers, Atty. Gen., Geo. W. Barcus, Fagan Dickson, and Elton M. Hyder, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellantRailroad Commission of Texas.

R. H. Whilden, of Houston, and Dan Moody and J. B. Robertson, both of Austin, for appelleeShell Oil Co., Inc.

Joe S. Brown, of Houston, and Stanley Hornsby, of Austin, for appelleeGulf Oil Corporation.

McCLENDON, Chief Justice.

Rule 37 case.The appeal is from a final judgment setting aside an order granting a permit to drill a second well (to quote from the order)"on the Anderson Crisp 1.77 acre or 3 acre tract in the McAnally and Alexander Surveys, East Texas Oil Field, Gregg County, Texas," as an exception to Rule 37 in order to prevent waste and confiscation; and enjoining production under the permit.The suit was by Shell (Shell Oil Company, Incorporated) and Gulf (Gulf Oil Corporation), adjacent lessees, against Trapp, the permittee, and the Commission (Railroad Commission of Texas) and its members.

This is the second appeal in the case.For opinion on first appeal seeShell Oil Co. v. Trapp, Tex.Civ.App., 169 S.W.2d 1010, error ref. w. m.

The controversy in the main revolves around the issue as to the amount of acreage Trapp was entitled to have considered in determining his right to the permit.Concededly he owned a tract of 1.366 acres.He claimed to own land to the east and north of this tract which would increase his acreage to 1.94 or 2.25 respectively.The trial court held that Trapp's claim beyond the 1.366 a. tract was not of such substantial character as to warrant a good faith assertion of title.The greater portion of the 740-page statement of facts is devoted to this issue.The trial judge has very clearly and accurately summarized the controlling features of this evidence in his findings numbered II to VIII, inclusive (Tr.pp. 40-45), which we approve and adopt.We deem it unnecessary, however, to extend this opinion by incorporating these findings therein, for the reason that the trial court's judgment must be affirmed upon the recent holdings of this court in the Miller (Miller v. Railroad Commission, 185 S.W.2d 223, error ref.) and Thomas (Thomas v. Stanolind, 188 S.W.2d 418)cases.For a like reason we also pretermit a discussion of the constructions urged by the parties, respectively, of the decision in the Landman case (Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Railroad Commission, 141 Tex. 96, 170 S.W.2d 189) as applied to the factual situation in the instant case.

The other issues present but two questions: whether there was substantial evidence to support the permit upon the theory of (1) confiscation, or (2) waste.

Upon the issue of confiscation the evidence was without substantial dispute; the controlling factors of which are embodied in the trial judge's findings X and XI, as follows:

"X.The said Crisp tract was on November 20, 1940, drilled to a greater density and had greater allowable production per acre than the surrounding eight times and larger areas as shown on plaintiffs' exhibit 17, and to a much greater density than the average of the East Texas field, than the average of said field in a segment extending from the said Crisp tract to the west edge of the field, than the average of the land extending from said Crisp tract southward to the south edge of the field and than the average of the land lying between said Crisp tract and the north edge of the field.Well number one on the said tract then had a net advantage in spacing in relation to the boundary lines of said Crisp tract over the wells on other land in the vicinity, that is, there was more land outside of the boundaries of said tract that was closer to Trapp well number...