Elliff v texon drilling co

Author: fknf

August undefined, 2024

WebElliff v. Texon Drilling Co. Texas Supreme Court 146 Tex. 575, 210 S.W.2d 558, 4 A.L.R.2d 191 (1948) Facts The Elliffs (plaintiffs) owned the surface and mineral rights to … WebElliff v. Texon Drilling (Tex. 1948) Physical Waste After Texon well blew out, Eilliff's neighboring gas and oil escaped underground. HELD. The negligent waste and …

Elliff v. Texon Drilling Co. - Quimbee

WebJul 25, 2010 · Texon Drilling Co. In that 1948 case, the Elliff family of Nueces County successfully argued that a blowout of a Texon well on nearby acreage wrongfully caused oil and gas to drain out... WebMabel and Frank Elliff (Petitioners) own a parcel of land upon a producing well. They had a royalty interest in oil and gas leases on their land. Clara Driscoll owned the land adjoining theirs. Texon Drilling Co. (Respondents) were drilling on Driscoll’s property, near Petitioners land. rudy flyer mascot

Texon Drilling Co. v. Elliff, 216 S.W.2d 824 - Casetext

WebELLIFF et al. v. TEXON DRILLING CO. et al. No. A-1401. March 3, 1948. Rehearing Denied May 12, 1948. Error to the Court of Civil Appeals of Fourth Su-preme Judicial … WebTexon Drilling Co. (Tex. 1948), Hague v. Wheeler (1893), United States Steel Corp. v. Hoge (1983) and more. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Elliff v. WebElliff v. Texon Drilling Co. Holding: The law of capture did not absolve Texon of liability. In Texas, landowners have "absolute title" to oil and gas beneath their land, but their … scar 15 inch subwoofer

Elliff v. Texon Drilling Co. Case Brief for Law School

Elliff v. Texon Drilling Co Case Brief for Law Students

WebTexon Drilling Co.,[10] which involved an oil well that malfunctioned and damaged a neighboring extraction operation. The defendant negligently permitted one of its wells to blow out and burn, which caused large quantities of oil from the plaintiff’s property to drain. WebElliff v. Texon Drilling Co., 1948, 146 Tex. 575, 210 S.W.2d 558, 4 A.L.R.2d 191. That opinion says that the gas is subject to regulation and to legitimate drainage under the law of capture, but that the owner 'is accorded the usual remedies against trespassers who appropriate the minerals or destroy their market value.' Moreover, the same ... rudy fonteyneWebTexas Supreme Court. Docket Number: No. A-1401. This is a suit by the petitioners, Mrs. Mabel Elliff, Frank Elliff, and Charles C. Elliff, against the respondents, Texon Drilling … rudy flowers

"WebElliff v. Texon Drilling Co., No. A-1401. - Texas - Case Law - VLEX 889174117. 0: [object Object]. 1: [object Object]. 2: [object Object]. 3: [object Object]. 4: [object Object]. 5: … " - Elliff v texon drilling co

Elliff v texon drilling co

$ELLIFF v. TEXON DRILLING. CO 146 Tex. 575 - Casemine$

WebTEXON DRILLING CO. et al. v. ELLIFF et al. No. 11681. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio. June 4, 1947. Rehearing Denied July 9, 1947. Appeal from District Court, …

Did you know?

WebElliff v. Texon Drilling Co. 210 S.W.2d 558: Supreme Court of Texas, 1948: Download: 99: Tapscott v. Lessee of Cobbs: 52 Va. (11 Gratt.) 172: Supreme Court of Virginia, 1854: Download: 111: ... a company's property interest in its product is valid only for the products it creates. "Others may imitate these at their pleasure." Upton v. JWP ... WebSee Texon Drilling Co. v. Elliff, Tex. Civ. App. 210 S.W.2d 553. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' actions resulted in waste and a wrongful dissipation of the gas and …

WebElliff v. Texon Drilling Co. Supreme Court of Texas March 3, 1948, Decided No. A-1401 Reporter 146 Tex. 575 *; 210 S.W.2d 558 **; 1948 Tex. LEXIS 394 ***; 4 A.L.R.2d 191 Mrs. Mabel Elliff et al v. Texon Drilling Company Subsequent History: [***1] Rehearing Overruled May 12, 1948. WebElliff v. Texon Drilling Co. Holding: The law of capture did not absolve Texon of liability. In Texas, landowners have "absolute title" to oil and gas beneath their land, but their ownership is qualified by the law of capture, which says that you own minerals if and only if you produce them (through drilling and pumping) - not through negligence.

WebElliff v. Texon Drilling Co. Case Brief for Law School LexisNexis Law School Case Brief Elliff v. Texon Drilling Co. - 146 Tex. 575, 210 S.W.2d 558 (1948) Rule: Under the law … WebElliff v. Texon Drilling Co. Occupancy vs. Title Johnson v. M’Intosh Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. US Unjust Enrichment vs. Forced Sale Somerville v. Jacobs Doctrine of Misappropriation International News Service v. Associated Press Law of Capture Elliff v. Texon Drilling Co. Pierson v. Post Friendswood Right to Publicity π, MLK Center for Social ...

WebELLIFF v. TEXON DRILLING. CO Supreme Court of Texas. May, 1948. Mar 3, 1948 Subsequent References CaseIQ TM (AI Recommendations) ELLIFF v. TEXON …

WebElliff v. Texon Drilling Co., 146-150 Notes and Questions, 150 Problems, 150-151 Willcox v. Stroup, 151-155 Relativity of Title (12 pages) Text, 155 ... Ark Land Co. v. Harper, 691–695 Notes and Questions, 695–697 September 30th Present Estates and Future Interests (8 pages) Text, 747–755 rudy fortonWebdrilling of any well within 300 feet of another and prohibited any well within 150 feet of a property line.29 In 1928 the United States Supreme Court upheld 20. Elliff, 210 S.W.2d at 561-62. 21. See Westmoreland & Cambria Nat. Gas Co. v. De Witt, 18 A.724, 725 (Pa. 1889) (discussing the rule of capture). 22. MacDonald, supra note 10, at 293. 23. scar 16 barrel threadWeb— Elliff v. Texon Drilling Co. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. scar 100 hoursWebTexon Drilling Co. v. Elliff Case Brief for Law School LexisNexis Law School Case Brief Texon Drilling Co. v. Elliff - 210 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Civ. App. 1947) Rule: The rule in … rudy flipper virginia beachWebMar 14, 2024 · Research the case of Aircraft Holding Solutions LLC et al v. Learjet Inc et al, from the N.D. Texas, 03-14-2024. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. rudy ford injuryWebOct 14, 2024 · Historically, there is precedent for damages for destruction of a neighboring well. In Elliff v. Texon Drilling Co., a well operated by Texon blew out and the resulting fallout destroyed a well on the adjacent property. The Texas Supreme Court found that Texon acted negligently and awarded damages. sc aquarium myrtle beachWebElliff v. Texon Drilling Co. (1948) Facts: Two tracts of land owned by two different parties shared a reservoir. One of the attached wells blew out when Texon was drilling and caught fire and cratered, so quantities dissipated. o Elliff: I own the land and thus what’s beneath and heavens above (correlative rights). sc aquarium weddings