Opinion ID: 1129782
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Miscellaneous Other Alleged Errors in Board Rulings

Text: Transco presents to the Court further assignments of error, denominated in its brief, Reversible Errors In The Board's Rulings. First, Transco argues that the Board was arbitrary and capricious in finding that Transco was discriminating against Coastal and owners of relatively small working interests in violation of Rule 48. We made clear above in Section II(C) entitled Non-Facts that neither the size of the parties nor of their interests was a fact of legal significance here. Nothing said in the intervening pages should cause us to lose sight of that elementary proposition. In any event, our substantive holding that Transco has lawfully been ordered to take ratably (if it takes at all) and to take ratably the gas of each owner in the common pool without regard to size of owner or interest coupled with our further holding that the Board has no authority to engage in price regulation should effectively dispose of this issue. Next, Transco argues that there is no substantial evidence to support the Board finding that ratable production occurred prior to July 1, 1982, and that Transco's cutback has or will cause non-ratable withdrawals or drainage. The point is specious. There may well be reasons not attributable to Transco why there may not have been ratable production prior to July 1, 1982. This would do nothing to ameliorate the undeniably discriminating effect of Transco's refusal after July 1, 1982, to take ratably, and more specifically, to take the production of the non-contract interest owners. The assignment of error is rejected. Finally, Transco argues that the Board improperly refused to receive and consider relevant evidence proffered by Transco and other parties to the substantial prejudice of Transco. We find no merit in this contention. The hearing of this matter was had in accordance with the official Rules of Order And Procedure For Hearings Before The Board, Order No. 201-51, Rule 13(c) of which provides (c) The materiality, relevancy and competency of any testimony shall be subject to challenge by any party to the hearing or by any member of the Board. When so interposed, such objections shall be acted upon by the Chairman or by the Acting Chairman, his ruling thereon being subject to change by a majority vote of the Board members then sitting. There is no necessity for enumeration of the points recited by Transco here. Suffice it to say that Transco has not suffered cognizable prejudice from any of the Board's evidentiary rulings, in that none of the excluded evidence would have proved or tended to prove that after July 1, 1982, Transco was taking ratably. Absent prejudice, any error in exclusion is harmless and cannot be grounds for reversal. Planters Bank v. Garrott, 239 Miss. 248, 270, 122 So.2d 256, 264 (1960). All other assignments of error not heretofore expressly passed upon are denied and rejected.