Howard v. General Petroleum Corp.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1952 |
| Citation | 114 Cal.App.2d 91,249 P.2d 585 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | HOWARD et al. v. GENERAL PETROLEUM CORP. et al. Civ. 19134. |
John N. Metcalf and Elon G. Galusha, Los Angeles, for appellants.
D. W. Woods, J. M. Jessen and Martin J. Weil, Los Angeles, for respondent General Petroleum Corp. Cree & Brooks, and John W. Brooks, Long Beach, for respondents Jack Herley, and others.
This case was here before. Howard v. General Petroleum Corp., 108 Cal.App.2d 25, 238 P.2d 145. On the former appeal, it appeared that after all evidence of the parties was in, the court had rendered a judgment of nonsuit instead of making findings of fact. We reversed the judgment of nonsuit with directions to the trial court to make findings and conclusions of law, and to render judgment thereon. Thereafter, the trial court made findings and conclusions of law, and rendered judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal from that judgment.
The facts are stated in our former opinion, and need not be repeated except to skeletonize them for the purpose of understanding the assignments of error.
Prior to 1926, plaintiffs, the owners of lot 18, block 19 of Athens, in Los Angeles, together with the owners of adjoining lot 19, were lessors in a community oil and gas lease. Royalty was to be paid to the lessors at the rate of one eighth of production, one half to the owners of lot 18, and one half to the owners of lot 19, whether production be from one lot or the other. A well had been drilled on lot 19. On March 27, 1926, the lessees assigned the lease to defendant General Petroleum Corporation, which operated the well and paid royalties until December 1, 1932. On October 26, 1932, General Petroleum bought lot 19. On December 1, 1932, General Petroleum received from plaintiffs a deed to lot 18 and a release of all its obligations under the lease, paying therefor $1,000 and other consideration. Plaintiffs have retained the consideration and have not rescinded, or attempted to rescind, the transaction. On January 11, 1933, General Petroleum conveyed lots 18 and 19 and the well on lot 19, and transferred all equipment and personal property owned by it and located on the lot, to R. P. Cooney. On January 23, Mr. Cooney entered into an oil and gas lease of lot 19 with defendants Jack Herley and Paul L. Kelley who reconditioned the well and have operated it since that time, paying royalties to the lessor but none to plaintiffs. This action is to recover damages in the amount of royalties on the production from the well on lot 19 since December 1, 1932.
The court found that by a grant deed dated December 1, 1932, plaintiffs conveyed lot 18 to General Petroleum, and concurrently therewith released it from the performance of all obligations under the lease. Plaintiffs contend this finding is without support in the evidence. The contention is without merit. Plaintiffs executed a grant deed, dated December 1, 1932, acknowledged January 4, 1933, of lot 18 to General Petroleum, and an instrument also dated December 1, 1932, and acknowledged January 1, 1933, which reads that in consideration of $1,000 and the assumption by General Petroleum of their obligation to pay back taxes and assessments in the amount of $1286.19 'we hereby release General Petroleum Corporation * * * from any and all claims for damage occasioned by virtue of their operation under' the lease, and 'acknowledge that said General Petroleum Corporation * * * has fully performed each and every obligation to be performed thereunder by lessee.'
These instruments were sufficient to convey all of plaintiffs' interest in the lease to General Petroleum unless they were procured by fraud. The complaint alleged that General Petroleum represented to plaintiffs that the well was not producing oil or gas in paying quantities, and that it was the intention of General Petroleum to abandon the same; that plaintiffs believed the representations, and in reliance thereon sold lot 18 to General Petroleum; that the representations were false and made with a fraudulent intent. The court found that none of the plaintiffs was induced to sell lot 18 to General Petroleum or to execute the deed or the release as a result of any false or fraudulent representation made to any of them by General Petroleum. The court also found that at the time they were executed, General Petroleum intended to abandon the oil well situated on the lands conveyed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stafford v. General Petroleum Corp.
...that have long since become final. Howard v. General Petroleum Corp., 108 Cal.App.2d 25, 238 P.2d 145; Howard v. General Petroleum Corp., 114 Cal.App.2d 91, 249 P.2d 585; Howard v. General Petroleum Corp., 136 Cal.App.2d 168, 288 P.2d 308; Stafford v. Yerge, 129 Cal.App.2d 165, 276 P.2d 649......
-
Stafford v. Yerge
...certain oil royalties from December 1, 1932, under a community lease to one Walter H. Fisher in 1925. See Howard v. General Petroleum Corp., 114 Cal.App.2d 91, 249 P.2d 585; Id., 136 Cal.App.2d 168, 288 P.2d 308; and Stafford v. Yerge, 129 Cal.App.2d 165, 276 P.2d 649. Fisher assigned the l......
-
Stafford v. Yerge
...judgment of the superior court of Los Angeles County in the case of Howard v. General Petroleum Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Howard case), which judgment was affirmed on appeal in 114 Cal.App.2d 91, 249 P.2d The facts in the Howard case were summarized by the District Cour......
- Howard v. General Petroleum Corp.