Hancock Oil Co. v. Meeker-Garner Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | MEEKER-GARNER |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | HANCOCK OIL CO. v.OIL CO. et al. CHRISTOPHER v. HANCOCK OIL CO. MILLS et al. v.OIL CO. et al. Civ. 19119. |
Jennings & Belcher, Los Angeles, Krystal & Paradise, Los Angeles, of counsel, for appellant Meeker-Garner Oil Co.
Samuel Lackman, Long Beach, for appellants Rabinowitz and Budnick.
Ball, Hunt and Hart, Joseph A. Ball, Long Beach, for appellant Christopher.
Harold A. Black, Philip K. Verleger, McCuthen, Black, Harnagel & Greene, Los Angeles, for respondent Hancock Oil Co.
Kenneth Sperry, Long Beach, for respondents Mills and others.
On May 17, 1947, a community oil and gas lease, hereinafter called the Chalker lease, was executed in counterparts by J M. Chalker, as lessee, and by the owners, as lessors, of certain lots embraced within Blocks 1 to 6, inclusive, of Tract 4143, partly located in the City of Signal Hill and partly in the City of Long Beach.
On January 16, 1948, Chalker and wife assigned said lease to the Hancock Oil Company of California, hereinafter referred to as Hancock. On January 31, 1950, the Chalker lease was ratified and confirmed by Hancock and the various owner-lessors, and the time for commencing drilling thereunder was extended.
By a rider attached to Chalker lease and dated October 1, 1951, Hancock expressly agreed not to erect derricks or install any oil well machinery, or in any way disturb the surface of any real property located in Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, or 6 of Tract 4143.
Madolyn M. Christopher, plaintiff in intervention, is the owner of Lot 8, Block 2 of said Tract 4143. She did not join in the Chalker lease so that her lot is not included therein. However, it is surrounded by lots which are covered by the lease, and it lies in a restricted zone of the City of Signal Hill upon which surface drilling is prohibited by ordinance.
Among the lessors of the Chalker lease were defendants Rabinowitz and Budnick, owners of Lots 5 and 6, Block 2 of the tract covered by the lease. These lots adjoin Lot 8 and are located in a commercial zone where drilling is permitted.
On July 27, 1951, defendant Meeker-Garner Oil Company entered into an oil and gas lease with Mrs. Christopher covering Lot 8. On the same day, said oil company obtained an easement from Rabinowitz and Budnick authorizing the erection of a derrick on the southerly 45 feet of Lots 5 and 6, for the purpose of slant drilling an oil well through the surface thereof into Lot 8.
In August, 1951, Meeker-Garner procured a drilling permit from the City of Signal Hill, placed equipment on Lots 5 and 6, and on September 4, 1951, commenced drilling a well from the surface of Lot 5. The well was slant-drilled to a depth of 390 feet into Lot 5, where it entered Lot 8. It was the intention to complete it by bottoming it entirely on Lot 8.
At this point, Hancock, as lessee under the Chalker lease, filed its complaint for an injunction against defendants Meeker-Garner Oil Company, Rabinowitz and Budnick, perpetually restraining them from proceeding further with their drilling on Lots 5 and 6, and requiring them to fill the hole already drilled.
Mrs. Christopher obtained leave to intervene and aligned herself with defendants.
D. A. Mills and those named in the heading hereto, as owner-lessors of various lots covered by the Chalker lease, were granted permission to file a complaint in intervention. They aligned themselves with Hancock and against defendants.
A preliminary injunction issued halting further drilling operations pending trial.
Among other things, the trial court found that the well constructed by defendants on Lot 5 'will interfere with the operations of plaintiff, and with the extraction of oil by plaintiff under the Chalker lease'; that said well 'does not create any physical obstruction to any of the existing or presently contemplated operations of plaintiff, but that said well will, if completed and operated, by reducing the production of the wells constructed by plaintiff under said Chalker lease, frustrate the object of plaintiff's operations and of the said Chalker lease, to-wit: the achievement of maximum production under said Chalker lease.'
Further that, unless defendants are restrained, Hancock and plaintiffs in intervention will suffer irreparable injury, for the reasons that defendants' well (1) constitutes a continuing trespass; and (2)
From the judgment which followed perpetually enjoining defendants from constructing maintaining or operating any oil or gas well within the boundaries of said Lots 5 and 6, and requiring them to fill and abandon the well already drilled, defendants Meeker-Garner Oil Company, Irving and Rose Rabinowitz, Mae Geller Budnick, and intervener Madolyn M. Christopher appeal.
The pertinent paragraphs of the lease and a rider thereto attached read as follows:
'1. Whereas, Lessors believe that their interests will be best furthered and conserved by joining their respective properties in this 'Community Oil Lease' under the terms of which their said property may be jointly explored and developed for oil, gas and kindred substances, and all Lessors may share in the royalties from the wells whereever drilled on said land, and they now desire to 'pool' their interests in such manner:
The rider dated October 1, 1951: 'Lessee expressly agrees that it will erect no derricks or install any oil well equipment machinery, or in any way disturb the surface of any real property located in Blocks One (1), Two (2), Three (3), Four (4), or Six (6), of said Tract 4143, Los Angeles County, California.'
It is appellants' contention that the Meeker-Garner well, as drilled--slanted from the surface of Lot 5 into Lot 8 where it was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cassinos v. Union Oil Co.
...for intentional, non-consensual flooding operations which caused damage to neighbor's lease; see also Hancock Oil Co. v. Meeker-Garner Oil Co. (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 379, 257 P.2d 988, holding that slant drilling which drains a pool of oil owned by another on adjacent parcel constitutes subs......
-
Union Oil Co. of California v. Greka Energy Corp.
...used equitable decrees to order the plugging and abandonment of oil wells to protect property interests. (Hancock Oil Co. v. Meeker-Garner Oil Co. (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 379, 381 ; Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Domengeaux (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 266, 267 .) This state also encourages prompt complian......
-
Costa Mesa Union School Dist. of Orange County v. Security First Nat. Bank
...gas lease has no greater interest in the leased land than that which he specifically reserves. (See also Hancock Oil Co. v. Meeker-Garner Oil Co., 118 Cal.App.2d 379, 386, 257 P.2d 988.) However, Hancock Oil and Siemon, supra, involved indentures containing provisions wherein the lessee was......
-
Mustang Production Co. v. Texaco, Inc.
...be bottomed under other land, if the drilling will cause drainage from the pool underlying the lease. Hancock Oil Co. v. Meeker-Garner Oil Co., 118 Cal.App.2d 379, 257 P.2d 988 (1953) (finding that lessee has a cause of action against the drilling party even if the lessor has authorized the......
-
Correlative Rights and Limited Common Property in the Pore Space: A Response to the Challenge of Subsurface Trespass in Carbon Capture and Sequestration
...trespass by permitting the void to remain. See Clegg v. Dearden, 12 Adol. & E. (N.S.) 601. 143. Hancock Oil Co. v. Meeker-Garner Oil Co., 257 P.2d 988 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953). 144. Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust, 268 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. 2008). 145. Tidewater Oil Co. v. Jackson, 3......
-
CHAPTER 5 HORIZONTAL DRILLING AND TRESPASS: A CHALLENGE TO THE NORMS OF PROPERTY AND TORT LAW
...Worth 1921). [146] Chevron Oil Co. v. Howell, 407 S.W.2d 525, 25 O.&G.R. 342 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.). [147] 118 Cal.App.2d 379, 257 P.2d 988, 2 O.&G.R. 1051 (1953). [148] Williams & Meyers, note 1 supra at § 218.6. [149] See Bruce M. Kramer, Developmental Conflicts: T......
-
POOLING FOR HORIZONTAL WELLS: CAN THEY TEACH AN OLD DOG NEW TRICKS?
...gas development). [38] Chevron Oil Co. v. Howell, 407 S.W.2d 525, 25 O.&G.R. 342 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.). [39] 118 Cal.App.2d 379, 257 P.2d 988, 2 O.&G.R. 1051 (1953). [40] See also New v. New, 148 Cal.App.2d 372, 306 P.2d 987, 7 O.&G.R. 213 (1957). [41] 1 Williams & ......
-
CHAPTER 15 OVERVIEW OF COMPLICATING FACTORS AFFECTING TITLE
...Watt v. W. Nuclear, Inc., 462 U.S. 36, 53 (1983) (finding surface estate to include soil). [78] Hancock Oil Co. v. Meeker-Garner Oil Co., 257 P.2d 988 (Cal. App. 1953) (distinguishing a wellbore from a pipeline after the owner of the traversed mineral estate claimed that drainage would occu......