Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Midas Oil Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided May 25, 1938No. 8635Published

1DissentBlair, Justice

The writer dissents from the majority view holding that appellant, Stanolind Oil & Gas Company, is an “interested party affected” by the order granting the permit to drill the well in question and entitled to prosecute this proceeding under Sec. 8 of Art. 6049c, as amended by the Acts of the 42nd Legislature, 4th C.S., Chap. 2, Sec. 8, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 6049c, § 8. Stan-olind was not the owner of the oil lease on the adjoining tract when the permit to drill the well was granted. Yount Lee Oil Company owned the lease on said adjacent tract of land. It had notice of the application of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Southern Surety Co. v. ArterTexas Commission of Appeals · 1932
  2. Texas Motor Coaches, Inc. v. Railroad CommissionCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931
  3. Murphy v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
  4. Allied Drug Products Co. v. SealeTexas Commission of Appeals · 1932
  5. Collier v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API