Edgar v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.
90 S.W.2d 656
Tex. App.
1935
Check Treatment

*1 ministration, of the estate the residue go legal all heirs the testator shall according dis- laws of descent state, including those tribution of this whom bequests were made special

will. the trial court is there- The .reversed, judgment here rendered fore ap- costs this indicated above. peal adjudged in the trial court are ad- the costs incurred below, paid to be out judged, as in the court testator, distri- before the estate

bution.

Reversed and rendered. W. H. Graves, Nunn and Wilcox & all Georgetown, for Edgar. Joe Turner, Winn, Rodgers & Dallas, for appellees Stanolind Oil & Gas Simms Oil Co. et EDGAR al. STANOLIND OIL & Greenwood, Moody Robertson, of Aus- CO. et al. GAS tin, appellee Magnolia Petroleum Co. Powell, Wirtz, Gideon, Rauhut & Appeals Austin. Civil Texas. Austin, appellee Tidewater Oil Co. Dec. BAUGH, Justice. Rehearing, Jan. Appeal is from a of the trial court, upon verdict, setting an instructed aside a of the Railroad Commission authorizing Edgar to drill oil well No. Joe 3 on a in Gregg 3.99-acretract land coun- ty, Tex.; permanently enjoining the which had permit. been drilled The same land is here involved that was involved in Magnolia Edgar (Tex.Civ.App.) Pet. Co. v. This tract runs north south, is about feet wide at the end, 1,600 long, north about and about 70 feet wide at end. Well No. here involved is located 234 feet from the Magnolia of land. Company Petroleum owns the lease to the

west of said the Tidewater Oil and north, Stanolind Oil own leases to the Stanolind, lease east there- of. has two wells on said center, strip; one near the which is offset east and west wells the Stanolind respectively, Magnolia, and One near the south end. appear: following facts promulgation

prior to the of rule Stinchcomb and Todd *2 subject- involving while the the suit became owners the controversy pending was in matter of this adjoining the of said acres to the west county, by the Rail the district Travis being owned court of thereof lands to the east of its or jurisdiction these road lost fence between Vivian Webb. tracts, 21, change of land der of No however, the October 1933. on Webb was over entry in the in ditions after is shown involved. On its strip here the and included case, the Todd stant and order of commission 1930, and the September 18, Stinchcomb 1934, September 24, herein at to the dated and by and bounds metes leased tract their tacked, jurisdiction in assigned want of void for Company, which Vacuum Oil to the 9, 1931, subject-matter Stinch- .commission over Magnolia. On June to thereof. Todd, limitation title Stewart v. Smith. claiming comb and involved, S.W.(2d) it to strip land here strip was to said title Edgar, and limitation this, however, judg addition to by of the district decree awarded to them the trial court should be sustained not county We do in 1932. Gregg court ground by on the that the lease Stinchcomb that Stinch- be controverted understand to and Todd of adjoining the 107 acres occupancy use adverse comb and Todd’s strip here involved to the Oil Com Vacuum good ripened into a strip land had of said 18, 1930, pany September on to Sep- lease of prior to limitation title 9, 1931, Edgar strip consti on June Com- 1930, 18, to the Vacuum tember voluntary by segregation tuted a them' of by to them not decreed pany, though it was strip contiguous larger such from a .tract judgment until whole, capable development a strip procuring After two wells on which, shape, would necessari because of its land, applied to the Railroad Edgar Commis- ly in exception to rule 37 order an 3, in- permit to drill well No. sion here develop they to were not for oil. This by application was the com- volved. This mission well-settled rule authorized under the now 21, Edgar refused on October do; greater no Edgar to could secure thereupon in the district filed suit right under than that vested in his the law county enjoin the commission Travis to & Ref. lessors. Brown v. Humble Oil drilling interfering from with his 935, S.W.(2d) 99 A.L.R. (Tex.Sup.) 83 April 6, 1934. No. 3. was filed on That suit Smith, supra; Sun Stewart Edgar pending, filed a for a While motion suit was v.Co. Railroad Commission (Tex.Civ.App.) with the (Tex. Smith v. Stewart application. That motion rehearing of his Civ.App.) 68 S.W.(2d) 627 (involving a commission, Sep- by and on heard strip similar of land claimed limitation), 24, 1934, tember by the Railroad Commission, by Supreme affirmed in 83 designated what order, an-amended Appellant urges that there was no evi granted Edgar to drill said well dence that segregation was for the Edgar No. 3. Thereafter dismissed his suit purpose 37, circumventing rule and that in the county, district court of Travis obvi- the lessors did not obtain title to said ously assumption had, that he after until decreed to them the ren it, he had filed obtained from the Railroad dered in 1932. The date of the relief Commission the he had theretofore occupancy immaterial if their claim and had jurisdiction invoked district court ripened prior good fact into a title to their to obtain. purpose lease. first And whatever their Thereupon appellees herein leasing original to the- lessee this suit to annul the so-called “amended tract, the -result 107-acre September order” of dated the commission is, that it could have been 24, 1934, operation by and to restrain the developed exceptions as a whole without to appellant of well drilled thereunder. necessary; whereas, develop rule 37 unnecessary We deem it the to set out in detail separate necessarily requires ment as a order, of attack on said exceptions brings rule the instant urged here as sufficient sustain the trial the rule laid case within down in the are, They others, judgment. among court’s that cited cases. will, of said well Appellants urge that Mag also ways urged, various waste cause in viola- by agreement nolia and have Stanolind tion of the conservation laws the state. Edgar of wells with as to location the facts above recited it is drilling estopped of same themselves From held, manifest, expressly and has been complain of appellants’ If the well No. 3. Ref. v.Co. Railroad 85 S.W. purely a contro- presented were here issue (2d), show respective litigants as to the versy between any injunction was insolvent before could might each, obtain. this contention rights provisions issue him under the is whether presented here the issue But *3 article In last R.S.1925. state are laws of the not the conservation fully question cited case is discussed that a matter That is being contravened. and need not be reiterated here. concerned; private public is which agreements parties cannot conduct record, Finding judg- no error in the by estoppel or themselves, whether between otherwise, ment trial is affirmed. laws, conservation vitiate the Affirmed. proper enforcement. obstruct nor Rehearing. Motion the enforce- whether it is immaterial And judgment, court’s affirming trial laws is invoked conservation of such grounds, on three (cid:127)we based our affirmance state, if parties by interested any an affirm- one of which would public in- shown. thereof is violation appellant rehearing, ance. In his motion for natural in the conservation terest finding, things, our urges, among other that paramount con- the matter resources is appellant draining through estoppel as be- cern, against which and one oil from 2 on as much or more No. the south ad- property rights private tween the jacent they were appellees as the draining lands of prevail. cannot leaseholders lease, is end of his from the north also shows the evidence think We appel- wells of erroneous in That the this: conflict, in addition substantial without what draining his lease lees to the north had been said, the two we have 2 well 1932; No. that his since 1931 and already producing appellant wells was not in until enable will 3.99-acre said drained not the leases of but lands all the opportunity recover equal fair and companies. requests to other oil He true that isitWhile said tract. beneath oil his well No. findings we correct our accordingly. that The evidence indicated that his well No. 1 is in the center 1 west, 'and on both east offset draining untrammeled strip of land is end of land; 2 acre of and that well drained lands, adjacent by wells on it is drained approximately four acres. think is We Edgar’s well No. at clear surrounding immaterial that all the lands only where is 70 by appellees. well No. were not owned wide, draining much or more oil from is as long result as is as their wells to the lands the north drain enabled recover a fair oil share portion from that beneath his own lands. His advantage in only to a fair and land. He is entitled drainage of through additional area opportunity fair recover his share equal already producing, may wells to be sufficient land, and this is af oil beneath his if compensate for the time element of drain- the wells he through him forded age of his lands to the north. But conced- injured complain. has, and cannot he ing this contention correcting our find- (Tex.Civ.App.) v. Bass ings requested by appellant, the other Brown Humble 1 opinion stated in our Ref. Co. &Oil sufficient to sustain the 1107; Atlantic Production A.L.R. trial court. The motion for rehearing is (Tex.Civ.App.) v.Co. granted to the extent correcting our find- S.W.(2d) 655. ings requested, respects in all other it is overruled. necessary Nor was by us in Humble part part clusions announced Granted and in overruled.