Distinguished
Distinguished by Carter Oil Co. v. McCasland, 190 F.2d 887 (1951)
The late case of Palmer Oil Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., Okl.Sup., 231 P.2d 997, is distinguishable upon the facts.
The opinion
O’NEAL, J.
(dissenting). I agree with the views expressed by Mr. Justice WELCH in his dissenting opinion.
It is my judgment this unitization act under the guise .of preventing waste in the production of oil and gas from the earth transcends, to an unwarranted and unreasonable degree, regulation of the production of natural resources, and enters the forbidden zone of taking property out of the hands of the owners and placing it in the hands of third persons as individuals and not as a state instrumentality for the purpose of operation, without the consent of . and in violation of their rights.
As I view this Act, it is an improper, unjustified and illegal delegation of police power by the state to private individuals, or corporations acting in a private capacity, as distinguished from acting in the capacity of a duly constituted state instrumentality, answerable to the state. It may be that the state may create a state instrumentality and vest it with the police power for such purpose, making it answerable to the state for its activities and results, but certainly .the state has no power under its Constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, to delegate the police power to private individuals or private corporations for such a purpose, or for that matter, any purpose.