Conniff

Calhoma Oil Corp. v. Conniff

Good Law
1929 Cal. LEXIS 547·207 Cal. 648·279 P. 771
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 22, 1929Docket No. S.F. 13053.California966 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Waste, J.

The plaintiff corporation instituted this action to permanently enjoin and restrain the defendants from interfering with its asserted endeavor to continue drilling operations on a tract of land situate in Alameda County, which tract by written lease bearing date March 19, 1925, had been demised to it for a term of five years by the defendants. The lessors, by way of affirmative defense, alleged in their answer that the lessee had violated a provision of the lease requiring continuous drilling, which violation, it was alleged, caused the lessors, on September 29, 1926, to serve the lessee with written notice of cancellation of the lease. The court below, on sufficient evidence, found the allegations of the affirmative defense to be true, and entered judgment denying the injunctive relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It also declared plaintiff’s lease forfeited because of breach of covenant, and ordered restitution of the premises to the lessors. Plaintiff appealed.

As a first contention appellant urges that the notice of forfeiture served by the lessors was insufficient and defective, and failed to work a forfeiture of the lease and leasehold estate, for the reason that such…

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.