TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Continental Oil Co. v. Gillespie

CONTINENTAL OIL CO. Et Al. v. GILLESPIE

Cont'l Oil Co. v. Gillespie, 178 S.W.2d 728 (Tex. App. 1944)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 3, 1944
Docket
No. 11299.
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
178 S.W.2d 7281944 Tex. App. LEXIS 615

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction. There is no statement of facts. The trial court did file findings of fact which fully set out the facts and circumstances surrounding the present controversy. Being unobjected to, such findings are here adopted.

Based upon said findings, the trial court concluded as a matter of law that a temporary injunction should issue. This conclusion is erroneous. The phrase “together with all rights, title and interest in and to any and all wells located thereon and any and all equipment in and upon, or used in conection with said wells,” does not include the string of pipe theretofore used for the purpose of supplying fuel for the drilling of said wells, nor the tank which had been used in connection with the testing of one of them. The trial court found in effect that the drilling and testing of said well or wells had been completed' and the tank and pipe disconnected therefrom prior to the time the assignment under which ap-pellee claims became effective. The phrase “any and all equipment * * * used in connection with said wells” does not mean any and all equipment which had been used in the past in connection with the drilling or testing of such wells, nor does it mean any and all equipment which might possibly be used in the future in connection with the operation of such wells as producers. Acacia Oil & Gas Co. v. Tidal Oil Co., 91 Okl. 237 , 217 P. 372 .

The fact that the line of pipe involved which had been used for the purpose only of supplying fuel for drilling purposes is suitable for equipping an auxiliary or standby gas well can not be given the effect of placing said pipe line within the wording of the assignment under which appellee claims title.

*729 The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the temporary injunction is vacated.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1975: 219752026peak 1975 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Adams513 F.2d 355 (5th Cir. 1975)
  2. Phillips Petroleum Company v. J513 F.2d 355 (5th Cir. 1975)

Most recent

  1. Phillips Petroleum Company v. J513 F.2d 355 (5th Cir. 1975)
  2. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Adams513 F.2d 355 (5th Cir. 1975)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Acacia Oil & Gas Co. v. Tidal Oil Co., 1923 OK 460, 217 P. 372 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list