Cities Service Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil & Gas Co.

35 Sаfeway Whitehead, fall tiff’s but was Stores 190 unable to do so. In v. Okla. my opinion, 464, 125 evidence is sufficient- P. 2d 194. ly definite establish the fact long It has been the rule in this state plaintiff very spot fell at that a demurrer ad- evidence steps lady where the two witnesses mits all the facts which the evidence slippery testified there was a substance slightest degree prove, tends to not more than 45 minutes before. inferences conclusions jury would be reasonable for a to infer reasonably logically slippery existing condition 45 therefrom, drawn and it is error to sus- up minutes before continued to the time tain such a demurrer unless there is an plaintiff fell. proof tending entire absence of to show Curry, to recover. See Davis v. just The facts in this case are 32, 186; 192 Okla. 133 P. 2d Criterion strong as the facts in H. S. Kress & Corp. Starns, 624, Theatre v. 194 Okla. Maddox, Co. v. 190, 201 Okla. 203 P. 2d 92; Nelson, Adm’r, 154 P. 2d Wasteka 706, v. 8, 1949, decided March where 439, 637; Co., Oil 196 Okla. 165 P. 2d permitted against verdict was to stand Co., Oil & Adams v. Stanolind Gas injuries Kress & Co. for sustained in 526; Campbell 478, Okla. 103 P. 2d v. a fall the floor of a retail store Peery, 51, 186 Okla. 2d 22. 96 P. in case, Ardmore. In that the evidence previous condition of floor many We held times that where have Henry, was Mr. and Mrs. who might men to the reasonable differ as they testified were in the store in- facts established and from the during part August the latter therefrom, ference drawn to be heavily oiled, the floor fact, was negligence question is one oil, pud- covered with and there were jury. City Smith, of Enid v. 167 Okla. floor; Negro dles of oil on the that a 765; Bernhardt, 381, 29 P. 2d Wisdom v. boy spreading the oil out with a Casualty 679; 385, 40 170 Okla. P. 2d apparatus; kind of that on the same Exchange Reciprocal Sutfin, v. day, and not more than an hour after 567, 166 P. 2d 434. Okla. they store, were heard that therein, someone had fallen and that respectfully there was I submit newspaper, Ardmoreite, of that eve- case to en- sufficient evidence ning following evening, or the disclosed jury. plaintiff go I title the that Mrs. Maddox was the one who opinion majority dissent fell. The court made this statement: sustaining the demurrer evi- of the defendant Reid. dence “By nature, reason of its the condi- tion testified to was admissible as tend- ing existing to show the condition fall, weight the time of the and the question jury thereof was a SERVICE CO. v. PEER CITIES GAS along to be considered with the other OIL & CO. et al. LESS GAS pertinent evidence thereto.” PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. v. STATE al. et anything I do believe there is distinguish that case from the one at Nos. 33006. 1950. Jan. bar, certainly, per if that case was Rehearing Denied March 1950. go jury, mitted to to the the case at bar should be. This court been 220 P. 2d 279. permitting go liberal cases to jury injuries on similar es business tablishments. I call to Owen attention Kitterman, v. 178 Okla. 62 P. 2d 1193; Co. Gran Halliburton-Abbott berry, 505; 179 Okla. 66 P. 2d Clark, Cullison, R. E. Glenn W. City, Rolston, Jr.,

Joe all of Oklahoma plaintiff in error Cities Service Gas Company. Rayburn Emery, Foster, Don L. R. Hummer, Harry Bartlesville, B. F. all of Williams, D. Turner and R. all of M. plaintiff City, Oklahoma in error Phillips Company. Petroleum Pruet, City (Rich- Earl of Oklahoma ardson, Shartel, Pruet, Cochran & City, counsel), Oklahoma for defend- error ants in Peerless Oil Com- 8s Gas pany County Royalty and Texas Land Owners Association. Q. Atty. Mac Williamson, Gen., and Floyd Green, Pruet, Earl and W. D. McBee, for defendants in error. Floyd Green, Blanton, John White, Charles F. State Okla- homa. McBee, W. D. City, Oklahoma Commissioners the Land Office. resulting in dis- field, and was Shipp (Robinson, Murray Robinson T. gas from sipation exhaustion counsel) curiae. amicus Robertson, of & supply at a frac- common source Com- WELCH, Oil & Gas J. Peerless value, and that intrinsic tion of its certain well and pany, owner resulting wanton located lands' leases oil prayed Office The Land waste. economic Guymon-Hugoton Field Gas fix Corpora- county, filed with the Texas certain standard and a ‍‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‍minimum application for an tion gas in applicable measurement Com- requiring Gas Cities Service applied its re- field and pipeline pany to connect reservoir. moval from the and receive the well and take published from the well flow of notice The Commission taking gas hearing of the from other wells place its of of a and the time petition, further and Land Office be held gas price persons should at which said interested fix the all with invitatiоn price for natural be taken and fix the The notices appear heard. and be Guymon-Hugoton gas com- named to certain were directed alleged purchas- operators, Oklahoma. panies Gas Field in Peerless to “all and drainage by Oklahoma, gas and failure and ers, Cities Service of and takers agreement Guymon-Hugoton Field with Cities for particularly of Service taking gas well, County, its Oklahoma.” in Texas disagreement particularly a as to proceeding a In the course gas. price for the requesting Com- petition filed admitting price for filed answer minimum Cities Service fix a mission to system ownership pipeline signed a gas field several its taking gas royalty field persons and under it was owners as offer Texas through designation and stated an its lines as members County Royalty As- from the Peerless wells Owners’ to take Land and taking ratably gas from with its sociation. field at wells other Commission, after the series paid average price in the field. hearings mentioned, after above alleged usage of its Cities Service pre testimony hearing from witnesses pipeline of a busi- in the furtherance Office, by Peerless, the Land sented producing gas for trans- natural ness testimony Service, Cities portation com- in interstate and sale gen persons, entered a various Corpora- mercе and asserted certain on and after a eral order was without or tion Commission mentioned, date, therein “no future facility its taken out shall be business, and, particularly, order the producing or formations structures price taking purchas- and terms Guymon-Hugoton Texas Field in ing gas in the field. County, Oklahoma, at at a per appli- hearing than thousand of the Peerless wellhead of less 7c After feet of natural measured had commenced cubic cation pounds permitted pressure absolute of 14.65 the State pressure per square Com Oklahoma, Commis- inch.” The on relation of the peti- Office, order to be the Land to file issued a further sioners of mission direct The Land Office come on the same date tion in intervention. effective ownership ordering alleged that Com in trust for the state ed to Cities Service acreage pany large from the Peerless land in the to take surrounding taking with its from other field and areas. It assert- wells monopolistic field and as ratable ed that and arbi- wells gen- trary gas prevailed prescribed in a certain former measurements Commission, eral order of the and that (c)It process pay violates the due clauses Cities the Peerless for the Service of the Oklahoma and Federal Constitu- per not less than thous- taken 7c (Section tion Amеndment; 23, II, Article and 14th feet wellhead measured and cubic well Sections pressure pounds pressure at a of 14.16 II, Constitution, Article Oklahoma square per inch. V, and Section Article Oklahoma Constitution.) Subsequent to the effective date Phillips Com- these orders Petroleum “3. If this Court should hold Com- application pany filed an to vacate existing mission under law is either modify price fixing provision expressly impliedly granted hearing powers price-fixing orders. After a wherein evi- some circumstances, ceivable unconstitutional cause : the same are introduced, dence was the Commis- applied herein be- ap- denying sion entered an order plication to vacate. (a) fixing Price has no reasonable appeals Cities Service from the two relationship waste, protection of cor- price-fixing appeals Phillips orders. rights, relative conservation from these orders resources; denying application to vacate. (b) It casts a on, impedes burden impairs During pendency interstate commerce of the Peerless violation commerce clause application, Peerless and Cities Serv- (Clause the Federal Constitution Sec- agreement ice entered into an 1); tion Article ratable from the Peerless and by leaving Service, wells Cities un- price paid (c) settled to be for process It denies Cities due and equal protection the Amendment, gas. (14th of the law Constitution). Oklahoma primary question presented in “4. If this Court should hold Com- appeals these arises from the order of present mission is under granted laws fixing price a minimum statutory price-fixing constitutional or on natural in the field. powers, existing then laws are not self- executing advance require Commission, in presents argument Cities Service un- attempt part of an on its to following der the statements: taking enforce the or purchasing of nat- specify ural particularity clarity constituting with and statutory “1. No constitutional or the elements granted Commission, either ex- taking purchasing basis of such or pressly by necessary implication, or parties so as to enable the concerned by general fix order or other -fully fairly to effectuate and a com- taking purchasing terms for natural pleted contract. gas in the field. “5. If this Court should hold Com- §233, “2. 52 O. purporting S. 1941 granted present mission is laws authorize Commission in case of dis- statutory constitutional price-fixing and pute to fix and other terms for powers existing and laws are self-exe- purchasing cuting, exercising then Commission in between parties, individual is uncon- thereunder is confined to stitutional because: ascertaining applying going and (a) policy sets forth or stand market and other non-discrimina- guide tory ard acting equitable Commission in pur- for terms (Articles thereunder chasing IV and V. Okla prevailing Constitution): homa field. (b) equal protection It violates “6. The orders of the Commission are (Sec- clause of the Federal Constitution vagueness, void because of indefinite- XIV, Constitution); tion Article ness, uncertainty. U. S. and denying By (g) filing petitions erred in with Commission Federal “7. demurrers; (a) Mo- Power Commission while trial in motions and was Cities’ copy progress stating inspection and Commission in- allow tion to increasing price Peer- terested in documents records and certain case; gas; phase judicial material less (h) By dismiss, allowing motion Commission’s con- (b)Demurrer, attorney judicial participate servation judgment and in motion and part private take an active case; trial phase of the dispute Cities; between Peerless and demurrer, motion (e) Combined By (i) admitting incompetent judgment and dismiss, and motion hearsay case; testimony; evidence phase of the legislative By (j) refusing findings segregate sep- aside (d) to set Motion Peerless, erate evidence Land of laws conclusions fact judicial Office and others at the close their entered testimony there- so Cities could know what substitute phase case judicial pertained phase con- evidence findings of fact for certain per- case and Cities what evidence of law submitted clusions legislative phase tained to the judgment; case; judicial new trial (e) Motion (k) By refusing Commission’s to rec- phase the case. ognize, apply, and abide its own of Com- substan- findings and orders “8. subsisting orders.” supported are not mission 1913, ch. 198, Since Laws secs. are competent tial, evidence 1, 2, 3, §§231, 232, 233, O.S. undisputed trary evidence. provided statutes state have grant Cities failed “9. fair might take, that owners from a com hearing impartial trial and a in accordance source, gas propor mon amounts process the due tionate to the natural flow of their Federal of the Oklahoma clauses respective wells, but not more than II, (Section 7, Bill Article Constitutions of that natural flow without con 25% sent of Constitution; Sec- Rights, Oklahoma Corporation Commission; Constitution; XIV, 1, Article U. S. tion any person taking gas from a By refusing inform Cities (a) field, except specified pur for certain what of the case the trial advance poses, “shall take from each procedure practice would rules of proportion owner of the to his by hear- applied be Commission at gas, upon interest in said such terms thereof; ing may agreed upon be between said ju- misjoinder (b) By allowing pаrty taking such, owners and the legislative matters; dicial agree in case cannot such terms ju- erroneously consolidating By (c) fixed be legislative Commis matters; dicial sion. . . .” By erroneously (d) allowing Of- Land protection Obviously, in- petition fice to file intervention case; terest all owners of the intervene is the intent of the statute and such is the By private allowing (e) citizen to guidance Corpora- standard speech to the of the make a statement acting tion Commission thereunder. during the course trial; types regulatory Various state providing taking schemes for ratable By plebiscite'of (f) conducting a land protect designed “coequal to royalty owners while case was in rights” of the several owners com- hearing; 40 supply sus 575, upheld mon source have been 20 S. Ct. this Court var- types regulatory ious of state schemes Indiana, tained. Ohio Oil Co. 177 v. designed prevent pro- waste and to 576; 190, 729, U. S. 44 L. Ed. 20 Ct. S. ‘coequal rights’ tect of the several Superior Ct., 284 Bandini Petr. Co. v. supply. owners of a common source of 103, 8, 136, L. Ct. U. S. 76 Ed. 52 S. clearly recognize Those cases 826; 78 A. L. R. Patterson v. Stano regulation may justified state on Co., 155, lind Oil & 182 77 Gas Okla. prevent grounds, alternative either Co., 83; P. 2d Patterson v. Stanolind adjust private waste correlative 231, 305 83 L. Ed. 59 Ct. U. S. S. rights.” Republic 259. Natural Gas Co. stating After a conclusion that state al., State et 180 P. 2d Okla. may require pres- ratable 1009, an order of an effect rights ervation of correlative in a com- Corporation Commission was sustained. supply, mon source of it was further provisions In reference of section said: 233, supra, and Cor- remaining “The is narrow issue poration pursuant Commission made practical whether the most method requiring producer thereto achieving a fair accommodation take from well of another rights parties correlative in- is ducer it was held that Republic required valid because take and to is foreign corporation permis- obtaining pay it does produce sion to do business and not want —at least does not want if it question in this state pay must . . it. . stitutionality of the statute. decision Republic compelled “The fact affirming of this court purchase either Peerless’ appealed to the United States Su- carry it to market and account for the preme Republic Court. Natural Gas Co. profits regulation does not make al., v. State et 334 U. S. 92 L. Ed. unreasonable. cause for If that were the sole held, opinion 1212. That court in an complaint, the state could take Frankfurter, Justice reason step requiring the more drastic completely open by the well matters left owners to shut down the Commis- produce until all were able to on a order, judgment sion’s court’s agreement ratable basis or came to some finality requisite lacked the ato review possible. effective clearly to make this majority opinion there. In the reference within the state’s to re- is made to the order of the Commis- quire Republic compensate Peerless going sion as no further than to re- drained quire ratable and. Peerless land. Patterson v. Stanolind probability the Commission will Co., Oil & Gas Ed. U.S. 83 L. specific be later asked to determine Here, Ct. S. 259. instead of taking including requiring Republic terms of the pay- make a cash paid ment based drainage, gas. on the estimated amount of Reference the commission has selected price-fixing made being inherent- unquestionably what method rights. a more accurate ly provocative of constitutional claims adjusting correlative probability and to the of additional fed- Even if it could be assumed question arising eral out of the con- imposed that heavier sible this method a somewhat troversy. Four members of the court Republic pos- burden than

joined opin- dissenting in dissent. In a alternatives, it does not follow that by Rutledge containing ion Justice a by the method selected discussion of the merits, case on the is unconstitutional. stantly recognized For con- we have it propriety is said: the of al- lowing wide discretion to the adminis- “ beginning agеncies ... In a line of qualified cases trative who are best century ago a half with Ohio Oil Co. to select the most reasonable solutions Indiana, 729, thorny problems accompany 177 U. S. L. Ed. the to that 44 upon agreement, take such terms highly to field. of regulation in technical this N. may Rowan & Oil Railroad Commission v. the Cor- be fixed Co., 84 L. Ed. 310 U. S. with poration consistent Keeping fact in mind the S. Ct. 1021. equality returns for taken peculiarly property a matter law is that practical or a field. device but Such difficulty special concern, of of local the feasible alternative consistent property rights defining regulating protect one the duction both experts respect gas, due to in natural the drainage the other. from field, rather facts in this and the unusual say presents, I cannot this record order, under The made Commission’s power to enter this the state is without 233, supra, provisions of section the order. directing Cities as a Service suggested order, since “It taking of of from dition its further purchase requirement of it includes the ratably take from the should merely transportation of and not readily Peerless, sustainable. wells accounting profits, invalid becomes portion directing the order to Re- it from Peerless because shifts payment for the so taken at not public risk incident business per at cubic feеt less than 7c thousand ownership gas. Pos- and sale rests the Commis- wellhead sibly might a more serious furnish general prohibiting tak- sion’s materially objection dif- basis ing producing structures But, apart from from ferent circumstances. what has now already said, in those been in the field for a formations presented I conceive no substan- per of less than 7c thous- wellhead tially greater possible from harm to be and cubic feet. depriving operation, the order’s than reg- provision made for In 1915 Republic rights from drain liability ulation of the extraction natural beneath to lease without Peerless’ only drainage pay prevent for the so drained. excessive pre- producers, as between parties “This if assumes protection and for the vention of waste agree upon should be unable to terms public and the interest fix in a man- the commission will ner them having those interest of taking prevailing due account of take from a common reservoir. market conditions to be relevant paid, com- as well as reasonable provided, It was Laws ch. pensation Republic’s use of fa- §239, §4, 52 that when the O. S. properly cilities. With those limitations from common full source great applied, it is hard to see what supply of natural is in excess Republic. business risk will be shifted to demands, producer the market аlready noted, For, as we have may subject supply commodity storage, from such common source of is one not transported as it only proportion must be sold as soon take therefrom such point consumption, subject to the fore and there- may waste, be marketed without possible cannot wide proportion flow in such selling price fluctuation between the producer of the well wells such purchase by Republic.” times of and sale total natural flow of the bears regard acreage process field, having due We think clear that due it well; provided equal protection provisions drained each permit Federal Constitutions do not State taking greater preclude amount state, whenever the exercise of preserve shall deem reasonable the correlative equitable. provides rights producers statute pool, “the commission is authorized and requiring common said one directed ... either down its shut wells take any or all such com- producer who supply mon sources within the has no outlet terms as the protect prevent waste, parties agree upon; so as to or in default par public, in interests of the at the “wellhead” each of the and of all those having right produce protection ticular fields. Referеnce therefrom, prevent having and to of all interest those unreasonable discrimina- produce gas any tion in from a common favor of one such common supply supply against source of source of as directs attention another.” overlying the owners of the land succeeding provided section 240 gas and such interests as have as follows: conveyed. Doubtless of because requirements technical and financial in “Every person, corporation, firm or taking gas place, from its natural engaged now or hereafter in the busi long general practice been the purchasing ness of gas purchaser selling and privilege landowners to lease the in this shall be a common taking gas thereof, from under and purchase their lands and shall all gas may usually royalty be in consideration of a sale, offered for and which rea particular part gas or a 1/8th sonably lines, reached its trunk equivalent so or taken its marketed. gathering or lines without discrimina Because of such technical and financial producer tion in favor of against one requirements development another, or any in favor of one source gas field, necessary and to the market supply against another save as ing gas, and commercial use of land Corporation аuthorized Commis usually compelled owners are to enter sion after due hearing; notice and leasing arrangements into such as the any if tion, person, corpora firm or only securing exploration means of purchase shall be unable gas offered, so purchase development then it shall of their resources. producer natural It shall from each ratably. very product, In the nature of the land any be unlawful such com accept delivery owners cannot purchaser mon like to discriminate between pro but ‍‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‍must trust grades pressures proper handling ducers for a of their or in favor of its own production, or of production. share of the Such reserved production directly which it royalty or interests are transferable indirectly or interested, either in whole are part. oft-times sold in whole or in part, purpose but for the pro rating the natural to be marketed, suggested by Rutledge As Justice production shall be treated in like Republic supra: State, Nat. Gas Co. v. any manner as that producer other person, only shall be taken “ place . . . Natural is volatile proportion ratable production that such fugitive, single once a outlet bears to the total available opened. When extracted it cannot be marketing. Com quantity, stored in but must be mаrket- mission regulations authority shall have to make ultimately tips ed at burner in the time delivery, metering necessary conveyance to them from equitable purchasing competitive strug- the well mouth. The gle ticularly all such shall have industry’s par- for the rewards any relieve such common purchaser, af stage intense in the initial ter due notice hearing, developing By industry’s a field. duty of purchasing gas of an inferior very required large outlays capital nature are quality grade. (Laws ch. continuing for successful 5)” sec. marketing. duction and tors, All fac- those Obviously the impelling reason for however, monopoly tend toward discrimination once success has been achieved in particular field. one supply source of against an- rests in economic consideration, peculiar moreover, qualities, “These and it practical obvious that a legal rights have been reflected in the ready means of preventing such dis- relating ownership appears crimination with control of the They place, as well as its extraction. original source, adapted have been to its nature and to finally production plied gross and regard- competitive struggle to the that of the ing price Only specialist in this branch it. market value measured law, of the state, which varies from state рer- thing produced or reduced of the any say can undertake taking gas from possession. of The sonal rights degree precision what reliable may of taking price of the when particular These in be situations. substantially gas than the lower is competi- difficulties, intensified having gas prevailing fields in other struggle product and the tive costs, commensurate inadequacy of common-law ideas market prices having relation to the it, control have forced both states resources of the natural of other value adopt government and extensive the federal ex- competitive usage, to an regulatory re- leads measures in of necessary years. having cent This has been gas of without haustion public interest both to conserve the this of fair share taxation. borne its rapidly depleting resource gas being of exhaustible adjustment Natural private and to fair of secure industry. rights public usage, in the Rather than be- in- various valuable ing sacred, enclave of untouchable Un- its conservation. terest extends to very law, the common the field its to gas doubtedly price at which especially gov- nature lends itself upon the an influence be obtained has pur- ernmental intervention for such gas purpose be for which ultimate poses. .. .” price for used, when taken substantially in- lower than its is readily is conceivable in the or lower than the market trinsic value development particular course of products usage, a of of similar gas field, ownership producing apt of the to occur. wasteful use marketing might facilities become such, combined, permit or be so relationship conserva monopolistic practices. Under the cir- following suggested ex in the tion is prices gas might cumstances para concluding pression having established no relation to the Quinton opinion graph Relief gas prevailing through- market value of Co. Commis Oil & Gas gas industry, out the natural and in sion, 164, 224 101 Okla. P. 156: develop- fields commensurate “ . has twice . . Natural costs, having ment no relation to heating gas, artificial and tak- units as the market value of other natural re- ing into consideration the convenience products competitive sources intrinsically gas, worth of natural it is usage. hand, On the other a like result gas; its market than artificial more might obtain from economic warfare per 1,000 being from value $2 $3 producers competing between mar- amount of carbon black cubic feet. The 1,000 keters. Under either of of nat- such circum- cubic feet of about ural has a market value prices might stances, reduced therefore, It, obvious that 10 cents. royalty landowners holders proper of its in the exercise particular leaseholders would have police power of so and in conservation gas exhausted, their interests natural utiliza- valuable gas, may prohibit a natural resource dissipated having taken, without the wasteful any compensation, received reasonable the interest tion of the same in and each suffer waste of a valuable public welfare.” reversion. impelling or cause reason for taking Likewise, under discrimination supply against from. one source circumstances would be inimical public another, of the land- interest. and the dilemma Like other nat- private subject growing contract resource, private ural owner out ownership his interest exploitation, without sale suggested ap- being represented, taxable resource. The tax is body expression policy law-making following found Oklahoma Such expressed Corp. al., of the state is Natural Gas v. State et subject mat- act. In the nature of the Okla. 17 P. 2d 488: compelled Legislature ter very “It would be a efficient scheme agency to another of the state leave proration law for a circumvent duty bringing about the result purchaser gas operating by pipe- pointed has been out the statute. As line, which it in order have nоted, 239, supra, section successfully handle to take more duty charged Commission is with the place in one on a low than cost regulating gas operating higher purchase a rival aon depending contract, supply. cost a on a common source of The stand- system reciprocity, of allow its com- acting guide ard to the in petitor pool in another to take more prevention waste, thereunder is the of cheap the rate. Thus it would be protection the of the of the interest friendly advantage pipelines, the and the necessity of the protection public, in- and the of the very disadvantage much to the of having right terest of all those a unsuspecting landowner. Hence the produce from of such common source putting somewhere the delegation supply. There is no invalid power get a check this and as power by uncertainty of reason of in the possible prevent equalize.” far as it and stated criterion and the act does not opinion We are of the con that such arbitrary pow- confer and uncontrolled siderations as above discussed occu price-fixing Com- The ers. feature of the pied legislative the mind and motivat a of se- mission’s order is but means ed the enactment of the 1915 Act. curing purpose act for which the grant power the 1915 Act of to the instrumentality passed, was or is the Corporation Commission to carry employed by the Commission to taking gas any of natural source legislative out the will limited and it is supply, protect of so as to the interest effecting ex- its use to the having produce of all those pressed purpose. validity The by necessary therefrom, implication, in rests in its reasonableness power cludes to fix a minimum relevancy policy Legislature to the gas on the as a condition of the adopt. was free to taking, reasonably when found neces York, As was stated Nebbia sary v. New accomplishment pur to the of that 291 U. S. 78 L. Ed 940: pose. grant power Likewise the of regulate, pow with directions that such control, any “Price like form prevent er be exercised so as to waste only regulation, is unconstitutional protect public, the interest of the arbitrary, discriminatory, if or demon- necessarily implies power prices to fix strably Leg- policy irrelevant taking as a condition adopt, islature free is and hence otherwise, pre unnecessary when because interfer- unwarranted liberty.” ence vailing with individual prices, public might interest suffer. Arnold, See Herrin v. 183 Okla. 82 P. 2d 977. is well settled that the state police power may reg exercise of its The Commission had befоre it testimony ulate the persons sworn who stat- protection public engineers long exper- interest and in ed were preservation private marketing correlative ience in the rights. Quinton gas. gave Relief Oil & Gas Co. v. of natural These witnesses Corp. Comm., supra; testimony Patterson v. Stano to the effect had that studies Co., lind Oil & Gas 182 Okla. been made of the character the nat- Republic P. 2d Guymon-Hugoton Field, Natural Gas ural in the supra. State, Co. v. and that studies had been made of the large acreage pay offering gas or was of natural intrinsic value market 3.34 cents. compared gas as value relation in the fuels of other value testimony abundantly supports produce. would each heat units conclusion conditions considered, factors With these being is taken from the field heat value commercial stated injurious public to the interest of the Guymon-Hugoton in the large, and inimical to the interest to its consideration Field, with tested group of a substantial such as land- central delivery at a certain sale resulting owners and and is others usage, point of commercial physi- economic waste and conducive to transportation of nominal subtraction testimony cal waste. The demonstrates point of commer central costs to such fixed as a condition of per 1,000 of 10c usage, in excess cial the further field large stated that feet. It was cubic beyond is reasonable the re- Guymon-Hugo acreage in the blocks quirements sought of the situation a com lease to Field are under ton corrected, and will not result companies own paratively who few discrimination. only pipe outlets line competition in the and that heretofore exercised its of fix- taking of not an element ing prices gas may at which being field; early and taken. As prices at field at taken from the 1920, prescribed after notice per ranging 5c from 3.6c to wellhead hearing, fixed 1,000 on a basis cubic feet measured per of 9c M.C.F. in the per pounds pressure square inch 2of Cushing 1944, acting spe- field. And in atmospheric pressure; above cifically in view national emer- being field and sold taken from the Commission, gency, after notice and away mea field under unit of hearing, authorized of nat- pounds 2 above of less than surement ural for the manufacture opinions carbon atmospheric pressure. Various black, paid fixed the to be by ‍‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‍expressed who were these witnesses for the and used. And experience long related records specified it was the continued ef- industry. It was stated that permit depend fectiveness of the should prices from the fiеld at maintaining price. of the fixed per 1,000 con cubic feet of 3.6c to 5c waste and that stituted economic In this connection we observe the fol- physical prices waste were conducive of lowing demonstrations of a well-known phys prevent economic and and that rule of construction. In Foot Town v. minimum ical waste the Watonga, 43, 37 Okla. 130 P. 597 per 1,000 10c in the field should be (598), this court said: cubic feet. placed “The construction on statutes employee provisions by An Land or State School constitutional officers discharge duties, of their either testimony gave ef- enactment, at near time 49,600 owned fect the state acres long acquiesced in, which has been county, 30,160 of land located in Texas just judicial a pretation.” medium for their inter- acres of which was under lease being producing 6,099.92 acres held as Bowles, And in Newblock v. Okla. 170 leaseholds; the Land Office was 487, 1097, (1101), 40 P. 2d this court receiving royalty productions from such said: per 1,000 of 4c feet on the basis cubic wellhead, and in some “In McCain v. Election Board State instances on the basis of 5c at al., 760, 85, 759, et 144 Okla. 289 P. producer one wellhead and that this court held: ‘The construction which 46 department govern- upon statute placed a statute

has been charged en- department with its execution is governmental ment officer charged weight great and should carrying titled to out of with the cogent reasons. be overturned without provisions accorded of the law is to be Legislature con- of Oklahoma has in con the courts due consideration period many during this times struing effect vened To the same the statute.’ Leininger without of administrative expressing construction holding of this court is the et al. v. Ward-Beekman Inc., disapproval. That silence Brooks, & regarded acquiescence 467; as administrative 292, P. Glasco v. Okla. 282 139 approval al., Okla. 121 Election Board et State statutory provisions struction. 642; Town of Similar 119, Foot et al. v. 248 P. have been so construed.” Watonga, 43, 597.” Okla. 130 P. 37 the order Washington County Cities Service contends v. State And impedes impairs appealed 73, Commission, Utah, 133 P. Tax 103 commerce in violation (568), interstate 564 court 2d said: Con- commerce clause of the Federal “ general rule that contem- ‘It is stitution. In Interstate Natural Gas depart- poraneous construction Commission, Power Co. v. Federal government specifically ment of gated dele- 682, U. 91 L. Ed. S. Ct. S. carry provision of the out a juris- involving is a case strong presumption Constitution raises a Federal Commis- diction of the Power construction, if uniform and that such long acquiesced expression: interprets sion, in, rightly we note this provision. . . . While such con- denying Power Com- “In the Federal struction is not conclusive jurisdiction to mission courts, it is entitled to the most re- gathering of natural duction spectful Fargo & consideration.’ Wells purpose Congress was not Harrington, Co. P. 54 Mont. petitioner companies free such as 463, 466.” public purpose control. effective See, also, League Taloga, v. Town of pre- was, rather, to regula- of that restriction 702; 35 Okla. 129 P. Williams v. powers serve States Co., Continental Construction 168 Okla. are tion in areas in which states constitutionally competent to act. ...” 34 P. 2d 254. powers re- “Clearly, among thus In Great Northern Life Co. Insurance the served to the States Read, construing 136 Fed. 2d a physical production regulate the Oklahoma, statute of the 10th Circuit gathering gas interest of in the Appeals Court of said: any of conservation of legitimate concern.” sideration of local clear, “It is under the Oklahoma stat- utes, foreign the license of a in- Corporation Commission has Here the company expires surance on the last price gas a fixed a minimum for day February of next after its issue. reservoir; price common Art. XIX of the Oklahoma Constitution applied the as a to be at wellhead statutes, and the Oklahoma hereinabove regulation taking. The condition of the permit tо, referred that of the construction applies production payment to the of gross the premiums of the tax expiration on or before the gas though it results in an inci- year day license on the last of Feb- price for dental effect the sale ruary is exacted privilege for the of gas gas after the has been reduced doing business in during the state subsequent possession, the of sale year license dent ensuing year. prece- and as a condition delivery gas into another state the for to the issuance of a for license the the does not brand Commission order Such has been the uni- regulation of interstate commerce. as a long-continued form and construction any regulation imposed The before department of the charged executive operations interstate commerce oc- with the administration of the statutes. long-continued Parker, Agricul- Director of cur. construction Undisputedly, production from ture, Brown, the it et al. v. U. S. resulting the Cities Service wells was said: Peer- drainage area where “ gone ... No case has so far as Cities Serv- less were located and wells hold that a state could not license ratably ice offered take otherwise the sale of articles taking from its with its Peerless wells buyer, within the ter in af- state because the offer to own The effect wells. processing packing will, them, price pre- gas average at the take the business, normal course sell vailing field, or on terms of ship them in commerce.” interstate purchaser” gas in a “common perceive doWe the com prej- no field. Service suffered Cities merce clause of the Federal Constitu rights udice its in the fact precludes protec tion the state in the investigate the Commission saw fit fixing tion local interests from a dispute after has arisen field-conditions price uniform minimum consideration growing drainage Peerless out from a condition of the of natural wells, price or in fact that a fixed gas from a common reservoir because gas for order was established. The producer therefrom have con hibiting taking gas Cities Service from tracted will contract for sale and except ratably from take its wells it delivery produc of his share of the wells, from the' Peerless as it insofar state, tion outside because price gas taken, for fixes so purchaser producer from such will sell any required the- same transport gas in interstate com purchaser field. There . merce greater occurs no invasion Cities rights depriving Service’s than it of general order of the Commission to drain from beneath fixing the minimum taken paying lease Peerless without part from the field as a of the order it. The effect of is to overall requiring ratably Cities Service take practical alternative, furnish consist- applied from the Peerless wells and as ent with Cities both Serv- to Cities re- Service has effect Peerless, protect ice and Peerless quiring Cities Service take drainage by Cities Service. pay from Peerless price equal taken at to the minimum process We find basis in the due it must obtain from its equal protection Fed- clauses own wells offered at well. If eral for con- and State Constitution price-fixing be said that under demning applica- the orders in their order, ownership Cities Service tion to Cities Service. pipeline might facilities, take complains of certain Cities Service payment own wells and after plead- rulings reference certain public charges royalty claims ings complains filed of the Com- on a basis the minimum rulings conduct mission’s fixed run the hearings course of various held across the state line and there with leading up promulgation profit disposition make orders under attack. here prices below the minimum fixed legislative the it does not it are in charac- follow that The orders pipeline right subject large to use its has facilities ter and measure to gather gas prinсiples by from other to wells on such the and the rules basis, disregard price validity in otherwise statutes are of of determined. preceding orders, regulations, hearings it or that use its the the and drainage thereof, as to effect from not for the rules wells violations liability procedure obtaining having principles without and of others relation price regulation. of a more the in the enactment statute ap- C.J., V.C.J., DAVISON, ARNOLD, rules the strict nearly apply than JOHNSON, JJ., and CORN and concur. courts. plicable to law GIBSON, HALLEY, LUTTRELL, and record the examined have We O’NEAL, JJ., dissent. support evidence find substantial HALLEY, findings (dissenting). J. are no error There the Commission’s majority opinion two conclusions in the committed. is of law in which I cannot concur. I cannot appli- Company in Phillips Petroleum agree Corporation that the Commission the to vacate to the cation given authority by Legis- has been the ef- testimony to the introduced orders general fixing lature to make a order gas leases oil and owns that it fect gas for the an entire field land acres thousands on several supply. common I source can- Field, and sev- Guymon-Hugoton agree not Commission has thereon, gas wells producing eral authority require Cities Service millions several presently pay gas pro- to Peerless wells; daily from such feet cubic Guymon-Hugoton duced in the Phillips sells substantially above the current market of Okla- in the State field said from price prevailing in that field. its wells gathers homa, but general price-fix- admitted that if the system to a gathering through its own ing order the entire field is au- of Texas point in the State central thorized, paid then ordered ex- processes it where necessarily to Peerless would follow the gasoline therefrom tracts general price for entire field. How- resi- hydrocarbons and .sells other ever, my general it view that such residue it sells gas; due price-fixing is not within Pipe Com- Line Eastern Panhandle powers granted Corporation to the Com- feet; 1,000 cubic per pany 4c at mission, and that Cities Service should Pan- and deliver agreed sell only required pay Peerless pro- gas it Eastern handle price prevailing current market in that 175,000 lease acres under duces field. subject county, in Texas gasoline to extract majority opinion does not claim hydrocarbons from said liquid general price-fixing authority delivery gas to of such prior supply a common source of has been the said central Eastern expressly granted Panhandle to the Commission. point Texas. authority It does conclude necessarily implied as a means brief, adopts of Cities Phillips here carrying express powers given out еnlargement ar- Service regulate presents conten- similar gument here prevention duction of waste, concerning tions protection co-equal rights, ap- orders make interests state and its cit- constitutionality pealed and the worthy objectives. izens. These are all appealed from. of the orders great The conservation challenges resource the best efforts the Cities Service Our discussion all, Corpora- does not warrant applicable. find no appeal here We exercising powers tion Commission equal process due basis delegated to it Oklahoma protection the Federal clause Legislature. condemning the Constitutions State applica- appealed from in their orders granting authority The statutes Phillips. tion to Commission to generally appealed af- are referred from are orders to as of 1913 the Acts and 1915. The firmed.

49 applicable authority regula- portion Act, ch. shall have tions to make metering delivery, for and page (sec. 52, 198, 440, 233, sec. 3 Title equitable purchasing taking of all 1941), O.S. is as follows: gas such to relieve shall have any purchaser, such common “Any corporation, person, firm, or hearing, after due notice and duty gas gas field, except from a purchasing gas inferior of an purposes developing gas for or quality grade.” or operating wells, and oil oil purpose of his own domestic 2, 197, ch. Session Laws Section use, shall take from each owner (sec. 237, 52, 1941) Title O.S. gas proportion of the in said be in to his interest “waste” follows: defines the term as gas, upon may such terms as agreed upon owners, between said “ ‘waste’, used . . . That the term as party taking such, and the or in case ordinary herein, mean- in addition to its they upon agree, cannot at such a escape ing, shall include of natural may fixed such terms as be quantities into the in commercial Corporation the tice and after no- open drowning air, the intentional hearing; provided, each capable of water of a ducing gas underground any stratum required owner shall be to deliver his quantities, commercial point delivery to a common waste, permitting adjacent overlying or to the surface wastefully burn, natural well gas.” such utilization of such and the wasteful gas.” chap 1915, following being Act, 197, (sec. 240, 52, ter sec. 5 Title O.S. foregoing of “waste” definition 1941) was enacted: Legislature enlarged by in 1933 was the term “wasteful and in “Every corporation, person, firm changed to “inefficient utilization” was engaged now or hereafter the busi utilization”. purchasing selling ness ‍‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‍common shall be a statutory It is a cardinal rule purchaser thereof, purchase and shall primary is to struction aim may all of the natural offered for sonably Legis- arrive the intention sale, and which rea ancient rule an- lines, lature. This be reached its trunk gathering lines, Temple, or tion in favor without discrimina nounced in United States v. producer against one as the fol- 105 U. 26 L. Ed. S. any another, or in favor of one source lowing words: supply against another save authorized sion after due notice and if Commis duty ac- read the statute “Our is to hearing; but cording im- and obvious any person, corpora such firm or resorting port language, without purchase tion shall be unable the construction, and forced to subtle the tending offered, pur so then it shall limiting purpose or ex- either e producer from each chas ratably. operation. the lan- When its any unlawful It shall be guage plain, we have purchaser common to discriminate such between like phrases to in- words or insert corporate grades pressures dis- a new and in the statute own natural production, in favor provision.” tinct production or of in which Again, No. in Russett School District directly indirectly inter 2d Askew, Okla. 141 P. part, C-8 v. ested, or in either in whole purpose prorating body the natural for the this court stated marketed, production to be opinion: manner as that shall be treated in like of shall be tаken said, the cardinal “As has often any person, producer been is to ascertain pro rule in such cases only ratable legislative intention. give effect production portion bears sought to be first That intention is mar the total available itself, language of the statute keting. Corporation

50 gas. The case plainly expressed, must utilization” it “wasteful if it is there inquiry.” Quinton followed without further reported & Relief Oil 164, Commission, Gas Co. 101 Okla. correctly majority opinion states The chapter 224 P. 156. The court held that effect construction to the the rule of conferring 1915, 197, Session Laws government that where an officer upon power to duty charged ad- agency with the regulations prevent make to rules ministering a law the law construes “wasteful utilization” acquiesced in and such construction gave body power gas, to also that period long time, con- for a such scope are define what uses within the weight given great struction should of that term. the courts when called Application However, 1937, In of Jack law. I am unable in Re strue such son, agree Okla. 66 P. that the record before us dis- 2d upheld authorizing Corporation Commis- court an order closes that sion, charged duty of admin- use of the manufacture relating pro- being istering the law carbon black as not a “wasteful reg- gas, has construеd utilization”. Reference is made to duction authority Quinton ulatory giving above, Acts as it case where use was price gas produced wasteful, to fix the held to be and it is held that except reservoir, if a where seller the Commission could determine what buyer agree upon price, utilization”, fail is “wasteful also it could long construction has been determine what use is not wasteful. acquiesced in. In War Board Production requested the Commission to enter During thirty years the more than authority granting order use charged the Commission has been the manufacture of carbon authority with the Guymon-Hugoton black in the The field. only duction of there is shown price order was issued and the to be single price instance where it fixed the paid per being ap- MCF, fixed at 5c a field common source proximately the market in the supply. 1920 the Nat- Oklahoma appealed field. The order was not from. Company ural Gas emergency It was an war order. Cushing Field in Creek coun- ty per MCF, selling at 6c it support The above record does not producers consumers. were threat- the claim Com- ening They their disconnect wells. mission has construed the statutes men- appealed to the Commission to fix a giving power tioned as it the to fix the higher price. The Commission entered for an entire field. Dur- fixing an order fоr the entire ing years these statutes have been Cushing per 10c field at MCF. This effect, major gas most of the fields appealed from, order it was not of Oklahoma have been discovered long is not shown how it was effective. developed. agree “implied I evidently previous There had been a powers” grant express flow agreement price. toas It was not shown powers, powers and that are those all, per cent, whether or what necessary or incidental to the exercise producers joined application express powers. the Commission. prices fix is a drastic one. In H. F. Wilcox Oil & Walker, Gas Co. v. In 1924 the Commission entered an Okla. 32 P. 2d this court an- prohibiting the use of implied nounced the rule relative the manufacture of carbon black. The powers as follows: appealed court, order was from to this ground affirmed order on the “It is well established the au- complained the use of was thority definitely of the Commission is my power expressly do limited to necessary that conditions is not view implication granted arise not exist or not hereafter the Constitution and the statutes.” Guymon-Hugoton field which may justify regulatory drastic meas- proration That case involved producers the Commission. The ures oil, principle appli- the same pipeline аre who facilities have cable to the of the Commis- wholly dependent upon who have those respect gas. sion with prompted such outlets. These facts have majority opinion quotes The exten- Legislature give to the Commission the sively dissenting opinion express powers prohibit discrimina- Rutledge Republic Justice in the case of protect tion and to the interests al., Natural Co. Gas v. State et especially parties. landowner The 62, 92 Ed. 1212. rea- U.S. L. However receive, he cannot interested because dissenting persuasive sonable gas his share of the store distribute opinion, concurred in other three depend- produced land, from his court, may be, members of the not it is upon pur- ent the limited number the law. may chasers in the field. It be receiving royalty are the owners If it had been the intention of our proper proceeds their share Legislature grant Commis- produced gas their and marketed power price gas sion the to fix the they receiving their land. If are not field, at the wellhead for an entire the just the of their shares terms simple addition or inclusion of a few they contracts, lease relief should seek granting regula- words in the statutes in the courts and not before the Cor- tory authority to the Commission would poration may Commission. It be that beyond have sеttled the matter doubt. gas price selling at a lower than its Why Legislature expressly grant did the justify value, intrinsic but this does not authority price gas to fix the where fixing price in the Commission buyer agree, seller and fail and fail Legislature given until it such completely grant authority such in power by terms, clear and unmistakable vastly important wider and more by necessary implication. fixing price field of over entire supply? field or common source of It physical The evidence shows that no Legislature is incredible that would Guy- being practiced waste is expressly grant authority such in a mon-Hugoton only venting field. The implied narrow field and leave it to be gas drilling completion is in the vastly important in a wider and more wells, expressly which is allowed gasA field, area. or common source of by statute. There is no claim of waste- supply, is the basic unit to which con- gas being ful utilization. sold generally appli- servation orders are fuel, power- pur- light, useful —-all Commission, cable. The order of the poses. approved by majority opin- which is ion, may price- means the Commission The evidence as to the effect of price every fix the fixing prevent in field economic waste is too justify state. The vague of oil is under and nebulous serious jurisdiction upon largely Commission un- It consideration. is based der authorizing similar comparative competitive statutes values of prevention waste, protection fuels, oil, such as coal and and if fol- co-equal rights, yet conservation, Guymon-Hugoton field, lowed in the price has never high asserted that there would be so of( price had the producers fix the possibly of oil. could not com- may is true that oil pete be stored and from other transported ways, various Oklahoma, states; while fields in or in other cannot be stored and Corporation must be trans- and if the order of ported by pipeline. effective, is made there corporation, “Any person, firm or might forced shut-down a result field, except depriving and its field, the state entire purposes developing gas or oil com- citizens of their interested operating wells, and for oil disposing open pete market use, purpose the shall the of his own domestic gas. of their each owner of take proportion interest to his Commission, price fixed upon said agreed upon such terms as buyer are unable where seller owners, and between said agree upon price, should be party taking such, or in case the cannot such terms price prevailing in current market agree at such Any un- would be field. be fixed discriminatory, inequitable. fair, after notice hearing; providеd, each own- Legislature had intended If required er to a common to deliver his shall give Corporation Commission au- delivery point on or thority fix adjacent overlying such to the surface every gas field in the gas.” expressly would have been for carried express This section has been given. Failure inten- ward in 1931 and 1941 stat proof tion is such intention appears utes, O. and now as Tit. 52 S. To existed. read into the statutes such 1941 power nothing legis- §233. drastic is short by judicial construction, and for lation The of the court the conclusion foregoing respectfully the reasons I dis- authority plenary Commission has sent. im- fix the in the field is Apart GIBSON, (dissenting). J. 1915, plied provisions from the L.S. stated in what has been Justice Hal- 197, §4, ch. which is as follows: ley’s dissenting opinion and from other “Whenever the full considerations which error in the any supply common source of majority holding opinion might of the in this state is excess opinion grounded, I am of be the the any person, demands, market then following clearly considerations dem- having right corporation, the firm to drill such opin- onstrate that the statement in the any produce gas from into and may Corporation supply, ion that the common source of ,fix only proportions of take therefrom such authority the may marketed the natural without the well or wells owned by any be and taken waste, flow оf as the natural only from the field is not without au- or controlled thority judicial legisla- in law but is corpora- person, firm or such legis- tion in the and that too face of a the flow tion bears to such total contrary. enactment lative having supply common source by acreage regard to the drained due each private ownership The the is any prevent well, such so as to recognized right the of sale as securing corporation person, any from; provided, firm or ownership incident obtains under proportion gas there- unfair by protected and is the Constitution Corporation the qualified proper authority. until under per- may by proper order, Commission is with- taking greater amount mit power right out to invade the it deem such whenever shall purchaser owner to sell and equitable. The said com- reasonable buy except right to the extent mission is authorized and directed prescribe regulations granted Legislature rules do is , flow of determination of the natural of the Constitution. any wells, well or such 1913, (S. 3) 198, 1913 L. ch. In sec. any of natural subject right, limitations, such was supply all such sources of with- common granted as follows: waste, prevent so as

53 protect public, Legislature is the interests embodied having produce of therefrom, those is same to be ascertained And the law. prevent and to unreasonable language primarily used any discrimination common in favor of one such language of and where the statute supply against source unambiguous plain is statute another.” for construction. there no occasion is Board, 144 Election McCain State v. together section, This with other also, 759, (See, 85, 289 P. 761. Okla. Act, visions of the 1915 also car- in 59 C. J. text cited thereon and cases 1921, ried forward in the 1931 and 1941 situation, 952, §569). where statutes, appears and the same now plain, language it meaning Tit. 52 O. 1941 S. §239. given effect the courts. must be County Pappin, Osage 139 Motor Co. v. That under circumstances 217; Pasley Union 281 P. Okla. quoted pari are in statutes materia Bartlesville, Okla. Bank of 137 Nat. question. there can be And such (See and cases 278 621. further text P. expressly fact has been declared p. 955). pertinent C. J. Another cited 59 Republic court Natural Co. v. Gas pari ma rule where statutes are in State, 350, 180 198 Okla. P. 2d possible be teria so far as should (app. Ct. dismissed S. 334 U. S. harmony with each construed 1212) 92 L. Ed. wherein there is rel. et al. ex other. State v. State said: Com’r, Shull, Bank 142 Okla. State significant “It also both 286 P. 891. brought Act 1915 Act and the were Statutes, forward in the 1921 the 1931 Now, the two sections consider Statutes, Statutes, and the 1941 so that light rules. of these one law apparent Legislature adopting the 1941 ‍‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‍Statutes did not specifically 233 deals Section superseded by sider the 1913 Law power prices that to fix extent of 1915 law.” Commission. exercised very rule of established construction plenary is not This in such situation is treat the sections is be idea that it so considered parts as of one law. rule is thus expressly negatived requirement stated J. in 59 C. §620: to the exercise thereof. conditions purport 239 does even Section “ ... is a well established rule definition of Commission’s deal with the particular that statute, provisions, same in the construction power. if it even can construed But be interpretation or in the of its involving price-fix- exercise of relating statutes ing power, be than it can none subject, having gen- the same provided for in section purpose, eral that which should be read in constituting together it, nection with condi- exercised under law, although one enacted were prescribed. To other- therein hold tions times, ref- different contain no only to harmonize wise is not fail erence another.” to one provisions, ignore a two legislative expressly de- intent which is repeatedly recog- This has been rule Upon theory you what im- clared. can applied nized court. Ratliff ply legislative different intent Fleener, 43 Okla. 143 P. contrary ex- to that which is from and 1052; Cook, Jefferson v. 53 Okla. pressly plainly law declared in the expressly 155 P. 855. We thеre being construed? relating subject held the acts together constituting should be read holding I the effect of consider “one law.” majority be even more ser- legislative The fundamental rule of a distortion of construction ious than recog- intent, is the determination intent of because to the it extent county appointing court power an administra-

nizes tor for the estate Hazel Ruth Rear- imposed limitation excess of the don, deceased. impairment Legislature, involves rights. property petitioner, February 3, 1948, resident county, petitioned of Oklahoma enforcement the law If the better county court for issuance of letters requires Commis- upon administration the estate of de- than sion clothed with more ceased, a resident of the Cal- State expressly granted law, alleged ifornia. Petitioner deceased died challenge legisla- fact is- a to further county intestate in Pottawatomie regard tive action to be taken with due May 26, 1947; that she left no assets need constitutional limitations. Such Oklahoma, except policy estate justification can afford no for this court public liability property dam- pow- invest age insurance, issued a California by judicial er fiat. corporation licensed to do business indemnifying in this deceased against liability damages аrising negligent operation of her auto- re REARDON’S ESTATE. mobile; that as a result of a collision SANCHEZ v. SYKORA. between deceased’s automobile April 18, petitioner’s No. 33664. 1950. vehicle he had sustained damages; the decedent’s claim P. 2d 998. indemnity county, arose Lincoln claim constituted assets of her her estate heirs at law interest; had his claim con- stituted him a creditor of her estate appointment him and entitled to seek county, of an administrator in Lincoln in order to enforce his of action against her estate. Hearing upon peti- was ordered proper tion, given notice interested parties. contestant, who a sister heirs, objected and one of decedent’s issuance letters administration ground county court county jurisdic- Lincoln was without tion or letters issue appoint Upon an administrator. hear- ing petitioner the court found the en- appointment, titled to such and then appointing entered an order one Forbis. appealed From this order contestant court, the district where the matter judgment was tried to the court and Draper Grigsby, City, of Oklahoma sustaining county entered court’s plaintiff in error. appointing an administrator. Wilson, Chandler, Walter G. for matter was submitted to the district defendant in error. following stipulation court facts: CORN, appeal J. This is an judgment the district court of Lin- petitioner “(1) herein, That Hu- affirming county, coln an order of the Sykora, resident of 1008 bert N.E.

Case Details

Case Name: Cities Service Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil & Gas Co.

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Jan 17, 1950

Citation: 220 P.2d 279

Docket Number: 32994, 33006

Court Abbreviation: Okla.