Under our limited power of review, we are not authorized to make a comparison of evidence introduced by the respective parties before the Commission, nor are we authorized to weigh the evidence to see whether the order of the Commission is in accord with the weight of the evidence. Creslenn Oil Co. v. Corporation Comm., 206 Okla. 428, 244 P.2d 314, 317 (1952). We find there is substantial evidence to sustain the order.
"* * * under our limited power of review, we are not authorized to make a comparison of evidence introduced by the respective parties before the Commission nor are we authorized to weigh the evidence to see whether the order of the Commission is in accord with the weight of the evidence. Creslenn Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission, supra [ 206 Okla. 428, 244 P.2d 314]. * * *" Protestants' brief says that "Even a cursory perusal of the evidence in this case will reflect that the order is not supported by substantial evidence protecting" their correlative rights.
We determine that the application of the rule should not be broadened to include recoupment of drilling costs so as to force contribution under the facts and circumstances of this case by a disinterested leaseholder. In the case of Creslenn Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission, 206 Okla. 428, 244 P.2d 314, 317, is the following language: "* * * The extent of our review of the evidence is limited under Article IX, sec. 20 of the Constitution of the State, which, insofar as here applicable, provides:
Both parties agree that our review in appeals from orders of the Corporation Commission, not involving claimed violations of constitutional rights, does not, under Art. IX, sec. 20, of the Oklahoma Constitution, require weighing or comparison of the evidence and that its sufficiency to sustain the order hinges only upon whether or not there is substantial evidence to support it. See Application of Choctaw Express Co., 208 Okla. 107, 253 P.2d 822, 824; Creslenn Oil Co. v. Corporation Comm., 206 Okla. 428, 244 P.2d 314, 317, 318; Yellow Transit Co. v. State, 198 Okla. 229, 178 P.2d 83. From the foregoing, we think it clear that the order herein appealed from is supported by substantial evidence.
" Such statute was likewise involved in the case of Creslenn Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission, 206 Okla. 428, 244 P.2d 314, 315. The second paragraph of the syllabus in that case is as follows:
But, as pointed out above, our authority in modifying orders of this character may be exercised only when the same is arbitrary and unreasonable. It was pointed out in the case of Creslenn Oil Co. v. Corporation Comm., 206 Okla. 428, 244 P.2d 314, 317, that, "Under our limited power of review, we are not authorized to make a comparison of evidence introduced by the respective parties before the Commission, nor are we authorized to weigh the evidence to see whether the order of the Commission is in accord with the weight of the evidence."
Since the record contains no iota of evidence to support the order establishing 80 acre units in an inflexible well pattern, it is apparent such order represented a compromise solution. Thus, under the rule announced in Creslenn Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission, 206 Okla. 428, 244 P.2d 314, the order must be reversed. Prior decisions of this court have delineated the guide posts to be used in measuring the propriety of the Commission's orders in these cases.