*1 812

BORAH, Judge. Circuit and Gulf OIL CORPORATION

GULF companion This is a case the four to Petitioners, Refining Company, today cases we have decided in Numbers v. 15,320 Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Fed- — COMMISSION, Commission, 15,321 POWER FEDERAL eral Power —Ohio Respondent. Commission, Oil Co. v. Federal Power 15,352 Superior Oil Co. v. Federal Pow- 15471. No. — Commission, 15,354 er and v. Fed- —West Appeals of Court States United Commission, eral Power 785. 236 F.2d Circuit. Fifth among Petitioners herein were the 30, 1956. June producers numerous the who filed with rehearing applications Commission for 21, Aug. Rehearing 1956. Denied They, of Order 174-A. like the other granted

applicants rehearing, for were argument oral full before the Commis- opportunity sion and were afforded an applica- support in to file briefs of their Following tions. of the submission arguments, and oral as in briefs the cases, by other the Commission is- order 24, 1954, September amended Or- sued respect in to der 174-A a immaterial petitioners, these and extended the time compliance from for with the order Oc- 1, 1954, 1 to December but it took tober upon the no further action at that time Thereafter, rehearing. applications for 1954, 17, December Commission on the in it amended Order 174-B which issued Order and denied all and restated 174-A rehearing respecting applications for 174-A, including had which Order those by petitioners Fol- herein. filed been lowing by and action the this Commission February 10, 1955, petitioners filed on petition their for of this Court review in prayed and that it be “set 174-B Order naught.” vacated, aside, and held for contentions and the Petitioners’ basic Pa., Gray, Pittsburgh, Jesse D. Archie vacating grounds for asserted Order Worth, Tex., Jr., E. Luton, Merle Ft. P. Minks, in essence identical to those are 174-B Mark, Tex., Houston, Stewart W. by urged petitioner in four com- the Okl., petitioners. Tulsa, for cases, supra,1 what have panion and we Gatchell, for Gen. Counsel W. Willard dispositive is of this those cases in said Commission, Lambert Power Federal McAllister, Accordingly, and for the reasons case. Counsel, Pascal B. Asst. Gen. length that stated at we conclude there respond- Washington, C.,D. for Frazier, is not reviewable and that order the ent. petition for review must be dis- the jurisdiction. lack of for missed BORAH, and I^VES, Before Judges. BROWN, Dismissed. Circuit Commission, 15,320. Magnolia 7, Co. Federal Power No. Petroleum v. footnote 1. See

813 Judge BROWN, dis- R. Circuit JOHN dissenting senting. opinion 236 see For

F.2d 785. Rehearing for

On Petition PER CURIAM. judges who con-

As of neither the in the in of court curred the decision the is entitled cause above numbered and petition opinion for rehear- that of the ing granted, ordered that it is should be be, petition is and the same the said hereby, denied. BROWN, Judge, dis-

JOHN R. Circuit sents. Petitioner, COMPANY,

The TEXAS v. COMMISSION, FEDERAL POWER Respondent. No. 15470. Appeals United States Court of Fifth Circuit. 30, June 1956. Rehearing Aug. 21, Denied 1956. Wilson,

John J. Washington, C.,D. Lake, Richard La., S. Orleans, New Whiteford, Hart, Carmody Wilson, & Washington, (Edward D. C. M. Free- man, Schlicher, City, Paul F. New York Hill, Jr., B. Washington, C., Howell D. counsel), petitioner. for of Gatchell, W. Willard Gen. Counsel for Commission, Federal Power McAllister, Lambert Counsel, Asst. Gen. Wash- ington, C., Miller, D. Edwin M. Wash- C., ington, respondent. D. for