Legal Opinion · Dissent

Holmes v. Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided June 15, 1960No. 13592Published

1Dissent

I respectfully dissent. The essential error of the majority opinion is that it writes about the method of drilling when the only issue concerns ownership of land. No one disputes the power of the Railroad Commission to issue drilling permits and to prescribe drilling methods. Peterson v. Grayce Oil Company, Tex.Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 367, affirmed128 Tex. 550, 98 S.W.2d 781. The issue in this case is not whether sand fracturing is a proper method. We take it that it is highly proper. The issue is not the waste or the conservation of the natural resources. Cf. Corzelius v. Railroad Commission,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Transport Co. of Texas v. Robertson TransportsTexas Supreme Court · 1953
  2. James v. E. Weinstein & SonsTexas Commission of Appeals · 1929
  3. Hastings Oil Co. v. Texas Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Railroad CommissionTexas Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co. v. Texas & New Orleans RailroadTexas Supreme Court · 1956

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API