TEEATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

PRICE DANIEL 

Auwrmu ~~.TExAe 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Hon. Wll1ia.m J, JWray, Jr., Chairnmn 

Railroad Commi6sion of Team 

hatin 11, TeJras 

Opinion No. V-836 

Rot whore a traot of 65.65 

aoipw3 IS segregated out 

of a 148.71 ao~e tract, 

tawt the Comnisricin 00x1~ 

rldor the orlglnol tmot 

to deterufae lðer tit0 

r*grP*gakd traot ir etlt2md &Q anothu. wall 18 

‘aa exorption to Rule 37r 

You huve reque6teU mu? oplnlou with rmprrat to 

the taeuaaae of a pemit a8 an exoeptlon to ?h~J,e 37* on 

the Luir of ee~tuia facts subaWmd in frour requart. 

la, brwlty, ue 8ummlse the toots 6a iol2ew81 

li. P, Pouell hat made appl.ioatlvn to 

the hll6Ilf66b#l ?OF 8 6jWOilhl *FIllit t0 drill 

a fiftwh el.2; u a u l xoeption to l@ale 37 on 

his 65.65 aare knot sh%oh ao&airu 2388 produatiw aore& Tirr D@IWBIII~LOU do66 Mb pant, 

a8 an uroeptioa to the rpaalag mile, a asoond 

OF udditieiial~,~ ~11 ii Ineluding the m 

a4 ~11 #H well &n&y on the product puclra- # 

aare6 will be 2u8m than five aorea Sop each 

I ‘i 

onde~ this foamala of the am- 

$s%‘i fiStl8 ml2 or2 the 23,04 gmxlwt$ve 

aem could not b6 ~;rraead, It 16 

th8 ap lioant, 

8 

heuewr, thrt the Pane “Fa 2 tZet 

of 65. 5 aozw ir 6 6thdivLion of a lrrg+r 

148.71 6~6 tmdt; and &we there em aftlJ 

rldmn wells on &he entlrr 148.71 acr8 &Wick, 

ho ir entitled to anothm w&l on the 65.65 

acvo Waot under tbs doatrine o? the 0ontw-y 
kioa. William J, Rurray, Jr. -,Page 2 (v-836) .~ 

care? ~4km 65.65 lore traot woe degrepted 

tram the 148.71 awe traot 6yb66qU6nt to 

th6 prowlptian of’ the or$g1n61 sploi 

rule, and rliqr the dL$mvery of’ pm&to Y lon. 

The qwrtion presented Is whetbrr, under the 

above faote, the Cwwtaaion 10 required to $rmt a 

alt l uthorleing the drilUn& of the fifth well on t Re ”’ 

Pour11 65.65 aare tract under u1e fhetrlfm 0E tM 

m, oaae, .* ’ 

. 

On,Hag 29, 1934, the Railroad Conualrel~n en- 

,. tared the folfowlry order:2 

“R uo~aatmmsn 

T 

the RaIlFord Cormiarion oi !!a66, tha Zn applying Rule 37 

-. 

1 

olia ?etraloum Cg. ,130 

9371 h 1Ql that where 

the’suidiv%ed portion 

I# entitled to a 1 well in orae ta pro-’ 

. 

toot the vested rights o$.th?.ouners ~o.~eoorer their 

fair share of oil, a permit to drill’ a well, on the W- 

& 

regated tract may be sustained.. For.@ d&3cusslon @f 

he “Century Doctrine”, see 17 T,.L.Xt. 382 (note 1939); . 

2 

. 
. . . -* 

Hon.,william J. Murray, Jr. - Page 3 (v-836) 

(spacing Rule) of statewide application 

and in applying every special rule with 

relation to spacing in every field in this 

State no subdivision of property made subsequent to the adoption of the original 

spacing rule will be considered in determining whether or not any property Is being 

confiscated within the terms of such spatlng rule, and no subdivision of property 

will be regarded in applying such spacing 

rule or in determining the matter of a@kafiscatlon If such subdivision took place . 

subsequent to the promulgation and adoption of the original spacing rule.” 

Under the “Rule of Ray 29” no subdlvlslon of 

property made subsequent to the adoption of the original 

spacing rule will be considered in determining whether 

or not any property Is being confiscated within the terms 

of such spacing rule, and the Commission cannot grant a 

special permit for a well on a voluntary subdivided tract 

on the basis of confiscation. Gulf Land Co. v. Atlantic 

134 Tex. 59, 131 S W 2Q 73 (1939) . This 

is subject to the ;oEtrlne of the Centur;y 

case, and a siecial permit issued by the Commission en a 

voluntarily subdivided ;tract may be upheld If the original 

tract, a8 it was ‘before the subdivlslon, is entitled to 

another well,to protect the landowner from drainage. 

. .’ 

All of the caees applying the rule of the Centu 

case appaar to’be based on a finding of.voluntary au d 

slon within the meaning of the Rule. Although we have been 

unable to find a definite expression by the courts that the 

doatrlne of the Centure case Is applicable only where there 

10 a voluntary subdivision, we believe such 1s true, because if the tract is not a voluntary subdlvlslon.wI.thln the 

“Rule of May 29, ” the Commission could, upon a proper flndlng, grant a permit for.a well on the segregated tract under the~conflscatlon exception to Rule 37, The question 

arlaea ‘only when’the Commission cannot grant the exception 

because of,the ap llcation of the ‘Rule of Ray 29.” 31A 

T’ex; :Jur. 689, II $ 07. 

,.’ It is therefore material to determine If the 

segregation of the 65'.65 acre Powell tract from the 148.71 

acre Caddie Fisher tract is a voluntary subdivision within 

the “Rule of Ray 29. ” Under the submitted facts, the POWeLl 
Hon. William J. Murray, Jr, - Page 4 (v-836) 

tract was segregated subsequent to the date of the 

original spacing rule, and after the discovery of the 

production. Also, at the time of the subdivlaion the 

regular spacing pattern for the East Texan Field was 

660’-330’. 

The term “subd1v1e1on” as used in the “Rule 

of May 29” was construed by the Supreme Court in Gulf 

Land Co, v. Atlantic Refining COY, supra, as follows 

n 

. The Rule of May 29th, supra, 

uses tks’term lsubdivlsionl in defining 

traote of land that have no protection 

from confiscation. The Commission has not 

seen fit to define ‘such term and ordinarily 

it would not require, a deflnit$og,:)because 

any tract of land segregated from a larger 

tract would constitute a subdivision. It 

is obviour that the term Isubdlvlslont 81) 

used In the order or rule under discussion, 

has no such general meaning. If such a meaning should be given the, term, a partition 0~ ‘. ‘Y”* ‘..I:. 

division of a 1,000 acre tract of land into two 

500 acre tracts would constitute a subdivision 

of the land under the rule. Manifestly, ‘such a 

construction of the rule would be absurd,,bacause the two 500-acre tracts would come under 

its law against subdivision, while tracts of 

much smaller area which do not constitute subdivisions after the effective date of Rule 37 

would not. As we construe the rule pertaining 

to reubdlvlsionl subsequent to the effective 

date of Rule 37, It means that where a tract 

of land ir of such size and shape that It is 

nectirsary to obtain a permit aa a special 

exception to the spacing provision of Rule 37 

before a well can be drilled thereon, such a 

tract will be regarded as a subdivision within 

the meaning of the Rule of May29th, supra, if 

it was subdivided out of a larger tract after 

Rule 37 became effective, Humble Oil & Refining Co. v, Railroad Commission (Tex, Civ. 

APP., writ ref.), 94 S,W.2d 1197; Falvey v. 

Simms 011 Co. (Tex, Clv. App~,), 92 S.W.28 292.” 
._ .-- 

Ron. William J. Murray - Page 5 (V-836) 

The Powell tract of 65.65 acres is generally 

in a rectangular shape with an average width of 1389’ 

and an average length of 1900’ and Is of sufficient 

size and shape that a well codd have been drilled 

thereon without the necessity of a special exception 

to the spacing provisions of Rule 37. The 65.65 

acre tract would, therefore, not be a voluntary subdivision within the “Rule of May 29th”, and the doctrine of the Centure case doe8 not apply; 

As to the’particular facts of this case, however, two arguments might be urged to remove this case 

from the above rule: 

1. That the 65.65 acre tract is an edge lease 

along the eastern side of the East Texas Field and the 

four previous wells now on the tract were all drilled 

as exceptions to the spacing rule; therefore, under the 

Gul Land case definition, the 65.65 acre tract 1s a 

& subdivision since the special permits granted on the first four iells are presumed to be necessary. 

In answer to this, we believe that the four 

prior wells were drilled as exceptions to Rule 37 In 

order that such wells could be drilled 81) near known 

production as possible, and not because of the size OS 

rhape of the segregated tract. 

2. That the C&f Lanf2;t;; f;ft;iti;;e;; ~~~~~j, 

oable only to productive acres 

and if the productive acres are of such a size m 8hape 

that a special exception to the spacing provisions la required before a well could be drilled thereon, the traot 

is a voluntary subdivision within the “Rule oi’ i?ay 29th.” 

The above argument Is not applicable to the 

facts of this case, and we render no opinion thereto, 

since the record reveals no facts which would lead us 

to believe that considering the Powell tract as a 23.04 

acre tract, that It Is “a tract of land , , , of euch 

size and shape that it Is necessary to obtain a permit 

aa a special exception to the spacing re#ulatlon of Rule 

37 before a well can be drilled thereon. 
Ron. William J. Murray - Page 6. (V-836) 

JEWrbt 

i2Jmaix 

Under the facts stated, a 

65.65 acre tract is not a voluntary 

eubdlvision within the Commleslenis 

Rule of May 29, 1934, and the Cornmiaaion need not look to the original 

148.71 aorea, aa It waa prior to aegregation, in determining whether another well should be granted on the 65.65 

acrea aa an exception to,Rule 37. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORREY ‘ORR 

BY 

APPROVED 

&u.2d’ 

ATTORNEY 0ENERAL 

.-. __ 

5 .’ 

.’ ,