Howard v. General Petroleum Corp.
| Decision Date | 13 October 1955 |
| Parties | Grace C. HOWARD et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, a corporation, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 21226. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
John N. Metcalf and Elon G. Galusha, Los Angeles, for appellants.
D. W. Woods, Martin J. Weil, Los Angeles, for respondent General Petroleum Corp.
John W. Brooks, Long Beach, amici curiae on behalf of respondents.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate the final judgment in this matter.
Plaintiffs are the nominal appellants but the record brought before this court establishes that Guy N. Stafford in 1953 acquired all of the right, title and interest of plaintiffs in the oil and gas lease, and the real property which are the subject matter of this action and all claims and causes of action, including specifically those set forth in the complaint herein, which the plaintiffs might have against the defendants herein. Stafford will therefore be deemed the appellant.
The judgment which the appellant seeks to vacate and nullify is one against the plaintiffs on the merits. It became final in April 1952. The motion to vacate it was filed in February, 1955.
This case is before this court for the third time. The nature of the action and all relevant facts are set forth in opinions of this court rendered on the two former appeals and it is unnecessary to restate them here. See Howard v. General Petroleum Corp., 108 Cal.App.2d 25, 238 P.2d 145; Id., 114 Cal.App.2d 91, 249 P.2d 585.
It suffices to state here that plaintiffs sought by their complaint to recover certain oil royalties under a community lease made by them to one Fisher. Defendant General Petroleum had by mesne assignments before the commencement of this action acquired all interest of Fisher in the lease and had purchased from plaintiffs and others the real property covered by the lease and all plaintiffs' right as lessors under the lease. It conveyed the real property to one Cooney who entered into an oil and gas lease with the defendants Herley and Kelley.
The sole ground upon which appellant seeks to vacate the judgment is that Cooney and Fisher were indispensable parties defendant, and that they not having been joined as such, the judgment is void.
Appellant does not assert and could not assert that plaintiffs did not know of the interest, if any, of both Fisher and Cooney in the matter to be adjudicated in the action, nor does he allege in the affidavit made here in support of his motion that any act of the defendants or of Cooney or Fisher...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stafford v. General Petroleum Corp.
...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, 139 Cal.App.2d 851, 294 P.2d 721. It would......
-
Stafford v. Yerge
...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 lease to the Walter H. Fisher Corporation, which in ......
-
Coburg Oil Co. v. Russell
... ... v. Russell, and Sanders v. Howard Park Co., which were challenged by the appellants and are for review in ... against certain individuals and corporations, one of them being Petroleum Development and Production Corporation, also known as Petroleum ... ...