Tyreco Refining Co. v. State, 4924.
Decision Date | 01 March 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 4924.,4924. |
Citation | 81 S.W.2d 291 |
Parties | TYRECO REFINING CO., Inc., v. STATE et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Smith County; Walter G. Russell, Judge.
Suit by the State of Texas and the Railroad Commission of the State of Texas against Tyreco Refining Company, Incorporated. From an order granting a temporary injunction, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
F. W. Fischer, of Tyler, for appellant.
William McCraw, Atty. Gen., and Tom D. Rowell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
The appeal is from an interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction against the Tyreco Refining Company, Inc., entered by the judge upon the plaintiffs' verified petition, and before issuance of notice to the defendant.
The suit is brought in the name of the State of Texas and the Railroad Commission of the State of Texas appearing by and through the Attorney General of the state of Texas acting at the request and by direction of the Railroad Commission of Texas, and seeks to recover statutory penalties against the defendant, Tyreco Refining Company, a corporation, for alleged violation of certain provisions of Revised Statutes, title 102, particularly article 6049c, as added by Acts 1931, 42d Leg. 1st Called Sess. c. 26, p. 46, § 4 (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. art. 6049c); and for alleged violations of certain orders, rules, and regulations of the Railroad Commission of the state of Texas, particularly its orders of February 15, 1933, and April 3, 1934, and December 5, 1934, made a part of plaintiffs' petition and alleged to be valid orders promulgated and passed by the Railroad Commission of Texas to prevent the waste of crude petroleum oil. Said orders in substance and effect provide:
The petition shows that defendant is a party amenable to the provisions of said orders of the Railroad Commission of Texas, under the terms of Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. article 6049c, subjecting thereto "any party engaged in the production, storage or transportation of crude petroleum oil or natural gas," by allegations as follows:
The petition states specific acts alleged to have been committed by the defendant on certain dates which constitute violations of each of said orders of the Railroad Commission, and further alleges: "That the defendant has hereto failed and refused and still fails and refuses to comply with said orders, rules and regulations, and has been and is purchasing and transporting and handling crude petroleum which was produced in excess of the amount allowed by the orders, rules and regulations of the Railroad Commission of the State of Texas, and without in any wise complying with said order of February 15, 1933, and said order of April 3, 1934, and said order of December 5, 1934."
Plaintiff prays for judgment, for penalties, for a receiver, foreclosure of lien, and for temporary injunction, and that upon hearing such temporary injunction be made permanent, restraining the defendant, its agents, servants, and employees:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Steele v. Winningham
...268 S.W. 1016; 24 Tex.Jr. 307, sec. 250. And the allegations of fact in the petition must be taken as true. Tyreco Refining Co., Inc., v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 291; Malone v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 335. But the rule for testing the sufficiency of the allegations of fact in ......