Court Opinion

ID: 9675558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:57:47.106698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:35.523922
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Norvell,
concurring.
As an abstract proposition, I am inclined to agree with the argument advanced by the Attorney General that the Railroad Commission could properly consider the permits issued to De-Bardeleben for the drilling of four Lower Pettit gas wells in the Elysian Fields area as null and void because such permits were issued in violation of the Commission’s rules and regulations as a result of the fraud of the applicant in withholding required factual data. It would follow that the Commission could properly refuse to set allowables for such wells until valid permits had been obtained. F. A. Gillespie & Sons Co. v. Railroad Commission, Texas Civ. App., 161 S.W. 2d 159, wr. ref.
However this was not the ground upon which the special order denying DeBardeleben’s application for exceptions to the density order was placed. Railroad Commission of Texas v. Gulf Production Company, 134 Texas 122, 132 S.W. 2d 254. While in said order the Commission recited that its rules had been violated, the application was denied because the Commission was of the opinion and found “that the well density on the four unitized tracts in question is one well to each 640 acres which is in accordance with the density pattern allowed by the Bethany Field special field rules; that no good and sufficient reason was advanced at said hearing which would justify exception to said special field rule either for the prevention of waste or for the protection of correlative rights.”
It further appears that the contention that the four well permits involved were subject to avoidance by the Commission was not squarely presented to the Court of Civil Appeals. The point there urged was that “the trial court erred in granting equitable relief to DeBardeleben for the reason DeBardeleben did not come into court with clean hands and he was a law violator.” While there may be similarities between the respective contentions, there are also obvious differences. The acceptance of the “clean hands dbetrine” would bar DeBardeleben’s claim to a court’s protection to prevent confiscation of his property. The Court of Civil Appeals correctly held that such doctrine was not applicable here. On the other hand the avoidance of the well permits would simply require the applicant to start over and in an orderly way obtain his permits, allowables, etc. *527Considering the basis of the Commission’s order and the fact that we are not authorized to reverse a judgment upon a point not raised in the Court of Civil Appeals, I concur in the judgment of affirmance.
Opinion delivered July 24, 1957.