Dutton

Dutton v. Interstate Investment Corp.

Good Law
19 Cal. 2d 65·1941 Cal. LEXIS 443·119 P.2d 138
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 24, 1941Nov. 24, 1941California2,068 words

Opinion

Opinion

This cause was taken over after decision by the District Court of Appeal of the Fourth Appellate District. Upon further examination of the record, we adopt the opinion of Mr. Justice Marks, with such omissions and additions as hereinafter appear, as and for the decision of this court. It reads:

11 There are two appeals in this case which have been consolidated. The first appeal is from an interlocutory decree in which it was determined that plaintiff had an interest in the profits from an oil venture and an accounting was ordered. The second is from the final judgment after the accounting.

“M. C. Dutton describes himself as a practical geologist. He testified that during and prior to 1935 he had spent much time in investigating the possibility that property belonging to the city of Los Angeles near Wilmington might be oil bearing; that after this investigation he formed the opinion that it was oil bearing. Zack N. Neel was an oil scout who had known Dutton for several years and had performed services for the Interstate Investment Corporation and Emmet H. Jones, its president.

“Dutton went to Neel and discussed the probability of the city property being oil bearing and of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.