Bullen

Bullen v. Bretteville

Good Law
239 F.2d 824
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 31, 1956No. 14897California5,092 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Barnes, J.

We will consider the intervenors’ appeal first.

Appellants Bullen and Hayward and their respective wives, intervenors, appeal from that part of the judgment which denied enforcement of the “two for one agreement,” by reason of which they sought payment, out of funds held by the court as a condemnation award, of the sum of $5,000, which they had advanced in equal shares of $2,500 each, for the completion of an oil well, known as Treasure Well No. 8.

Treasure Company, a corporation of which de Bretteville was President, as lessee of certain property in Los Ange-les County, started drilling for oil many years ago. When money for drilling became scarce, Walter B. Scoville and The Adamant Company, a corporation, came to the rescue, and provided funds to continue drilling. For this they were to receive participating royalties. Again money became scarce, and Mr. Bullen and Dr. Hayward each advanced $2,500, under the terms of a letter dated September 27, 1938, written by Bullen to George Halverson, (an attorney representing Scoville and Adamant) ; (Exhibit B-l of Plaintiffs in Intervention) and endorsed by Scoville and Adamant only. By the letter, Bullen and Hayward were to receive one…

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.