*2 resulting litigation which in the summer compromised, strip of 1933 was each, cut into 4 lots of about acre of ½ appellee Blankenship got which the south ernmost. granted Permits were Railroad the owners of 2 Commission to lots to these sink on each. Blank a well enship applied permit, for but was a upon litigation denied. He entered with Mag the Railroad Commission in intervened, Company nolia Petroleum he temporary injunctions against obtained protection interference under of which he sank well and then a on his lot dismissed litigation. his Commission a n of Texas d state brou t g h against p suit him dollar a thousand for na l e ty sinking p for the well without t i e r m it; and collected cross-action Blank but enship got a judgment that the Railroad do him certificate Commission issue au thorizing ap operate him to his welL No taken, peal was but is contended Magnolia Company that Petroleum jurisdiction court had not to make the lat present In ter order. suit Rail joins Blankenship Commission tak position penalty that the which was paid public wrong condones that permit. done his without a was Tex., Dallas, ap- Surles, Russell wells The three ten(j on the three half acre lots pellant. ¿[rajn adjoining t0 from lands Tex., Lee, Longview, Edward W. closely J. spaced. wells where the are not so Okl., City, Dudley, of Oklahoma B. court, however, Magnolia’s found that Holt, Harry S. McCraw, W. Wm. years running J. which had been for two Tex., appellees, Austin, Pollard, all of Blankenship’s put down before had more oil from land drawn SIBLEY, Cir- Before FOSTER likely than his well was to draw from STRUM, Judge, District Judges, cuit come, long land for time to Magnolia’s inequitable it was and that between SIBLEY, Judge. Circuit enjoin Magnolia Blankenship operation Company, owning Petroleum Magnolia his ile the other Gregg 81 land in on acres of oil lease on wh produce. continued brought county, Tex., on M.arch in- permanent court for a a state suit place in Texas oil in soil against G. T. junction conveyance, capable ownership an ad- operating an oil well on from him County Stephens v. Mid-Kansas Oil Gas acre, one-half of about joining tract Co., Tex. 29 A.L.R. 113 254 S.W. of Texas the Railroad Commission 556; Co., Waggoner Sigler Estate v. Oil him of com- issuing a certificate 27; Tex. but S.W. own stat- conservation pliance with qualified ership is termed what to the federal landowners, The suit was removed utes. capture by adjoining right of injunctions were hearing final and on court percolating capable waters are not just as appeal judg- questions This denied. ownership, adjoiner by if an absolute so ment. waters sinking a well withdraws such right no undisputed. neighbor, neighbor has facts Tins The main are Ry. East, v. action, Houston & T. C. Co. leased acres on which owners who the 81 66 L.R.A. Company Tex. S.W. Magnolia Petroleum has several 98 Am.St.Rep. 620, 4 Ann.Cas. so lease on a 107 producing wells made another place has been held strip adjoining on an owner of about 2 acres also narrow against asserted, ad- action conflicting lease was the west. A prevent or lessen such waste. the rule * production judgment ing. imminent, mission shall distribute, in this State that waste common able basis.” wise distance of fied among the waste to be drilled troleum sary 6049c, force such as to * * c. 26) and hear enforce § gan to be enacted in tion statutes to be enforced Texas, with sion get his full more drilling Rev.Stats. of 1925 serves and oil land and sary remedy. General conservation Pursuant S.W. 1088. The joiner commission over all edy being & Gas Co. v. State (Tex.Civ.App.) 143 7) directs the commission to make and may * * § acts thus set § prohibited place complaint drains power corporations complaints. * * rule, regulation prevent injury Commission. rules to secure comprehensive 5) 15) allocate the allowable * § the various who them being passed regulations: Commission, pool provides by injunction crude is (8) provides: the Commission and 1932 Article 6024 thereof, in this to a constitutional necessary less and natural * operating reasonably away as amended (1st Called up both By rules, share. of the Texas authority drill It shall do all crude The Commission conservation of crude in 1931 than 660 feet from another resulted its rule 37 the commission sinking portion petroleum operated the former’s to Article for limitation or fixing prevention State, offsetting and shall make owning or jurisdiction competition producers regulations committed to the Rail By (4th (4th S.W. any party to statutes to petroleum institute “Upon Hermann v. “(4) persons, 1919, oil and (Tex.Com.App.) or order as in its required (1st to make all neces adjoining property. article 6023 of that end.” Article gives gas naturally prorate, wells on his Called the com thereof may Called * * * To in such of a well gas the administra objects Called and to wells so as to looking is the initiative things on a reason have been unable require the commis In the event gas suits and hold a hear associations, oil, is amendment, engaged and oil re to Prairie Oil oil in reasonably shall Sess., or orders producing the veri waste be or other given Sess., Attorney adequate enlarged * * * Sess., correct, Thomas produce manner prevent is tak neces waste. to the make Sess., at a rem waste or c. own en pe to c. c. person ministering the oil nal for relief as a ly equivalent in as a matter of state on limit the rate of flow in Legislature it has the method each this connection, we hold that since the order to cover a permit for a well on his small tract would unless proportion oil and mission to owner be subdivided and such subdivisions drilled proper, right, after the forced, so, less of ownership through place with proper. were to and held to by tection wells in the East capture “Each *3 limited rights right Id., ownership has been are rendered Court of Texas in Brown v. Humble Oil tional well, changes in the law and the ownership Co., can be capture thus conditions drill potential production, 87 S.W. 83 S.W. reference to the fundamental Blankenship having been refused a instances it is the under his recently nearby provided to possession, permits, especially has the person in oil he could quantity gas production granted wells located limiting the allowable prevent waste, The the Railroad on small adoption some arrangement, voluntary or such smaller valid. power is still of oil in impaired, adjust oil has been modified and of the oil and of the oil and has bestowed the origin. under his land. (2d) person protect and the necessary may provisions wells. But he now has still owns the oil considered grace. land, amount liability of oil drainage share in the oil operative. matter of Rule 37 just to save arise where it would be from have tracts. place will be entitled to re hearing. regulate sinking and each still in order use, enjoyment, so that vested 944, 99 A.L.R. allowable, gas exceptional apply Commission, to tract and new remedies to has the duty above referred to old ones the so as to production 101 A.L.R. on smaller his primary nor the rule; permit business of this gas the recoverable adjoiners. commission, gas. By right, gas produced It was said: to that tribu power rights excep field. These of new only land, * * * abolished the spacing.” of the com * * * offset wells adjustments substantial of his oil but in all power explained based on produced way tracts to Supreme give property his right and not rule of prevent permits regard has of ad gas tracts, every wells right 1107, from just this also But Al In peace well and is at and the state. The with the commission of the opinion commission. We are of question is, What are Blankenship’s well, lawfully, put whether private him and obligations between not, down or ought permanently not to be neighbor the con Magnolia? Before closed Magnolia, at instance statutes, put on servation each could Magnolia’s preventive remedy his own land all the wells desired without Blankenship producing is too much oil accountability to the The law other. apply the commission for rule through stopped that. commission has proration among competing all wells. But an unable himself protect Judgment affirmed. drainage given an offset *4 and petition to commission Rehearing. for On Motions power the commission has quent duty and a conse adjoining “prevent to injury to PER CURIAM. property,” portion touching pool or and a common have rehearing for Earnest motions “distribute, or prorate of it to by Petroleum appellant Magnolia filed been otherwise allocate the allowable by appellee Commis Company and Railroad among producers.” This we various one has but Texas. The commission sion of remedy Magnolia think is the should record, in which in its answer pleading is Blankenship seek if it believes that position that Blanken squarely it takes the part getting more fair of than' his $1,000 penalty ship by paying the became Mag certainly for equitable It is not oil. produce and from well gas to entitled injunction against nolia to have perpetual a per though originally got had just he as any Magnolia getting while it, judgment of mit to drill and that the away. all The evi continues to drain it county requiring the Gregg court of district about dence shows there are difficulties that compli him a of issuance to of certificate by damages, adjustment means of suits for binding. The valid and commis ance was they an available become indeed have contrary nothing to the in this sion filed regime. remedy the conservation in the under rehearing for It cannot motion court. margin1 think the statute We do not repudiate pleadings join in and the con its vesting it a Magnolia in as relied right appellant Magnolia of the Petro tentions any right gives it to an action Company. leum Pullman Co. v. Bul See negative, is injunction. The first sentence (2d) 44 F. (C.C.A.) lard 347. and conservation laws declaring that the held, we not both motions But have impair not under them shall proceedings assume, conclusive, Gregg county judgment is damages for or other of action any cause correctly or decided may against have producer one relief which payment penalty of the purports give to no new cause another. permit necessarily Blankenship’s rendered is sentence affirma The second of action. questions well a lawful one. Those are property pro or tive, gives owner law which have found nec Texas we not by vio damaged another iswho ducer essary say to We that the only decide. status sue, but right the acts a lating Blankenship’s well least being at doubt damages, and such “recover ful, Magnolia, owning compet it is not for may in entitled to he be relief as other wells, wholly operation by principles equity.” general law or permanent, injunction. Else other well the stand equity thus remain of law ards, attempt could thing, had owners be injunction is not even a bill in Magnolia is home state inequitable. when it Oklahoma, injunction operates orders since authority to enforce the given an Nothing; any judg Commission, order of Art. or 6049c: “Sec. 13. here or Any party authorized, ment herein mentioned. in contained no own or suit ing any any against Commission, property pro interest or or may damaged by imposed any penalties claimed duction which or be party violating any violating any any party against Statute other this Act or oth regulation prohibiting any rule, State, or er or Statute this State this waste impair violating any Commission, rule, regulation or or valid shall order may abridge delay any Commission, action order of the sue cause for and any damages, damages, relief, or other recover and have such oth producer petro may any relief as of crude er land he be entitled to in law equity.” par gas, (Vernon’s other or natural leum Ann.Civ.St.Tex. against 6049c, ty interest, may 13.) assert § have or art. at violating any rule, regulation any party Gregg easily judgment the force of the might Conflicting results personam. county may considered. court then be referred of Texas The statutes reached. make of this disposition we put Nothing in the opinion expressly previous in our prevent. would making case as of enforcing as duty of upon the commis regulations the rules recent deci several We are referred to Attorney General sion, and direct injunc in which sions courts appro by injunction or them enforce proper against sinking tions wells without enforcement remedy. In such priate prop permit recognized as were awarded or quasi statutory as in ceedings as well Magnolia er: Petroleum Co. v. county from Travis appeals the court of S.W.(2d) (Tex.Civ.App.) Commission regulations, rules and making of Supreme affirmed and rendered public and the represents the commission & (2d) Court Stanolind Oil 96 S.W. may status result establish (Tex.Civ. Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission Magnolia Petroleum world. See 1057; Empire App.) (2d) Gas 92 S.W. S.W.(2d) 359. Edgar (Tex.Civ.App.) (Tex. Fuel Co. v. Railroad Commission Company given no Magnolia Petroleum Civ.App.) were 94 S.W. These rules authority enforce the commission’s county brought all under the suits Travis pri orders, only its own but can assert *5 directly statute to set aside orders under rights. vate We hold that permits allowing refusing commission case, include of this circumstances They to sink wells. do not deal with com question Blank refusal to the commission’s pleted wells, private right or with the well, equity operate his enship’s right to adjoiner operation of such. its injunction, but that if permanent to a adjoiner ought Our view that the in a case unduly by Blank being drained oil lands are like this to have recourse to the commission enship’s well and the other two permanent injunction rather than to have a which before on the two-acre tract apparently approved Oil in Stanolind than unit of less subdivision in 1933 & Gas Commission and W. acres, twenty legal rem Sartain, and sufficient L. ’S.W.(2d) where our adjustment edy proration or opinion is to obtain a is cited. der from the commission. When subse for rehearing motions are denied. quent promulgation of rule 37 this small tract was subdivided owners that, partition, recognize although we acquired each the oil under title to subdivision, he had no absolute single remained a a well. The tract duction unit handled under rule to be applies which in terms to tracts held either single owner or several owners. suppose We that if the denies commission SECURITY-FIRST NAT. BANK LOS OF al. v. ANGELES RINDGE LAND subdivision of such tract its own et CO. et al.* NAVIGATION just apportion well that it make can some produced ment of the oil on those subdivi No. 7965. wells; sions which are allowed im Appeals, plied, expressed, if not in the act of subdi Circuit Ninth Circuit. Court vision that owners not allowed a well are Aug. 17, 1936. wholly to lose their oil. situation, would have been in this but he fact, now has a well great sunk at ex pense and under color of court sanction. It is for the commission on a hearing for a proration say order production what should be allowed to the whole two-acre tract against Magnolia adjoin and other ers, and within that proportion tract what allowed to it should awarded to well as the other two previously on the tract. If material, found payment effect of the $1,000 penalty by Blankenship and
* For opinion rehearing, see F.(2d)