Title: McARTHUR-PRUITT Inc. v. CORPORATION COM. ex rel. PRORATION ATTY.
Citation: 168 Okla. 365, 1934 OK 331, 33 P.2d 504
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: May 29, 1934

McARTHUR-PRUITT Inc. v. CORPORATION COM. ex rel. PRORATION ATTY. Annotate this Case McARTHUR-PRUITT Inc. v. CORPORATION COM. ex rel. PRORATION ATTY. 1934 OK 331 33 P.2d 504 168 Okla. 365 Case Number: 24914 Decided: 05/29/1934 Supreme Court of Oklahoma McARTHUR-PRUITT, Inc., et al. v. CORPORATION COM. ex rel. PRORATION ATTY. Syllabus ¶0 Oil and Gas--Enforcement of Proration Law--Giving Statutory Notice as Prerequisite to Order of Corporation Commission Restricting Production. The giving of the notice provided by section 7959, C. O. S. 1921 [O. S. 1931, sec. 11570], before entering an order restricting the production of oil from a particular source of supply is mandatory, and upon failure to give such notice, the Corporation Commission is without jurisdiction to enter an order restricting production and requiring ratable taking. Appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission by McArthur-Pruitt, Inc., et al. Reversed and remanded, with directions. Ralph G. Thompson and Everest, McKenzie, Halley & Gibbens, for plaintiffs in error. Edwin Dabney, Proration Attorney, for defendant in error. OSBORN, J. ¶1 This is an appeal by McArthur-Pruitt, Inc., Rio Neches, Inc., and R. A. McArthur, Inc., from an order of the Corporation Commission closing certain oil wells for overproduction. ¶2 On complaint filed by the proration attorney before the Commission, it was found that for December, 1932, and January February, March, April, May, and June, 1933, there was an overproduction of the wells in question, and after entering such finding of facts, the Commission ordered the wells closed. ¶3 Among other things urged by appellants, it is insisted that the orders of the Commission made for the period in question are void, since they were made without notice. This issue is Controlled by H. F. Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. Paul Walker et al., No. 25048, opinion filed May S, 1934, 168 Okla. 355 , 32 P.2d 1044 . ¶4 Other issues are presented, but it would serve no useful purpose to discuss them. The order of the Commission closing the wells of appellants is vacated, and the cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss the same.