Thomson v. Talbert Drainage Dist.

Decision Date13 March 1959
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesW. S. THOMSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TALBERT DRAINAGE DISTRICT, etc., Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 5945.

Mize, Larsh, Mize & Hubbard, Santa Ana, for appellant.

Rutan, Lindsay, Dahl, Smedegaard, Howell & Tucker, Santa Ana, Hanna & Morton, Harold C. Morton, Max K. Jamison, Los Angeles, for respondent.

SHEPARD, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order vacating a judgment. The order is responsive to a motion based on the sole ground that certain allegedly indispensable parties were not joined and that the judgment is therefore void. Plaintiff has appealed.

Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of California organized for the general purpose of draining undesirable surplus waters from the lands within its boundaries. Plaintiff is a landowner within said district. The parties moving to set said judgment aside and who claim to be indispensable parties, (whom we will hereinafter call 'movants') are all landowners within said district upon whose land oil wells are producing surplus waste water, or are lessees operating said wells.

August 5, 1954, lessees, to assist in the contemplated disposal of waste water from oil wells, secured from defendant a license agreement giving lessees for the period of one year and thereafter until six months' notice of termination, permission to dump waste water (from which all oil had been filtered) into defendant's drainage conduits. Said agreement provided further that it might be terminated immediately, without notice, at the option of the District by: 'Court action or proceedings of the injunction, order or demand of any Court, or the order or demand of any water authority, State or County Health Officer, or District, County, State or United States authority or authorities of any kind or nature.'

July 17, 1957, plaintiff brought suit to enjoin defendant from permitting use of its drainage lines for the disposal of waste water by oil companies or operators. January 3, 1958, defendant gave to said owners and lessees the six months' termination notice provided by the agreement but no point is made of that on this appeal. February 13, 1958, pursuant to a stipulation between plaintiff and defendant a judgment was entered by the court permanently enjoining and restraining defendant from permitting certain of its drainage lines (which had theretofore been used by lessees for said oil well waste water disposal) to be used for the acceptance or disposal of any water from any oil or gas well operation. April 9, 1958 and April 14, 1958, said lessees and owners, respectively, moved the trial court to set aside and vacate the judgment on the sole ground that the parties indispensable to the action were not joined therein. May 1, 1958, the trial court filed its written order granting said motion and ordering said judgment vacated. Plaintiff appeals from said order.

From the affidavits filed in support of said motion it appears that the drainage lines of defendant, in which a license was granted by the agreement for disposal of waste water from oul wells, are the only practicable means presently available for disposal of said waste water, although another main line from another political subdivision was expected to be laid near by within a year or so. It further appears that said wells are subject to water drive, and if they are shut in for any substantial period of time they are likely to become totally and permanently...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Ursino v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 30 Mayo 1974
    ...injure or effect their interests. (Bank of California v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 516, 522, 106 P.2d 879; Thomson v. Talbert Drainage Dist., 168 Cal.App.2d 687, 689, 336 P.2d 174.) An attempt to adjudicate their rights without joinder was futile. (Bank of California v. Superior Court, supr......
  • Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 27 Enero 1967
    ...rights of other property owners and of any other interested persons without proper joinder would be futile. (Thomson v. Talbert Drainage Dist., 168 Cal.App.2d 687, 336 P.2d 174; Bennett v. Hibernia Bank, 47 Cal.2d 540, 554--559, 305 P.2d 20.) It is equally true that when jurisdiction is to ......
  • Orange County Water Dist. v. City of Riverside
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 20 Agosto 1959
    ...the waters of such agencies, without affecting their rights. The situation is precisely like that involved in Thomson v. Talbert Drainage District, 168 Cal.App.2d 687, 336 P.2d 174, only recently decided by this court, and in point also is the even more recent case of County of San Bernardi......
  • Warren v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 30 Julio 1971
    ...That the miscellaneous defendants are necessary or indispensable parties is indicated by the cases of Thomson v. Talbert Drainage Dist., 168 Cal.App.2d 687, 690, 336 P.2d 174 and Irwin v. City of Manhattan Beach, 227 Cal.App.2d 634, 636--637, 38 Cal.Rptr. 875. It is noteworthy that, as to a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT