Dawson

Dawson v. Standard Oil Co.

Good Law
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 1990·216 Cal. App. 2d 85·30 Cal. Rptr. 600·18 Oil & Gas Rep. 425
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 13, 1963Civ. No. 26581California1,885 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bishop, J.

The plaintiffs, claiming that the defendant had a continuing obligation to account to them for a percentage of the value of the oil, and other hydrocarbon substances, that it obtained by slant drilling from under their land, brought this action for a declaratory judgment. The defendant not only confirmed the existence of differing views, by answer, but also filed a cross-complaint in interpleader, naming the plaintiffs and two others, Paula L. Lawrence and Fred W. Marlow, as cross-defendants. Later, by stipulation, a cross-complaint for declaratory relief was substituted for the original cross-complaint.

At the trial evidence was “introduced by way of diverse documents and stipulated facts,” as the judgment recites, and the cause was submitted on them. Judgment was then entered decreeing, first, that “Standard has no obligation whatsoever nor has Standard ever had any obligation under that certain agreement, hereinafter referred to as the Stocker Strip Agreement, dated April 4, 1951 by and between George C. Stroebe and Sue C. Stroebe, as Grantor, and Standard, as Grantee, and in particular Paragraph 3 thereof, to account for and pay to Reginald S. F. Dawson and llene M. Dawson,…

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.