Legal Opinion

Alphonzo E. Bell Corp. v. Listle

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 27, 1946No. Civ. 15111PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, P. J.

Plaintiff sued to cancel an oil and gas lease by reason of the failure of defendant to resume drilling operations within the 60-day period following the service of notice of default. It demanded that its title be quieted and that it be restored to possession. Defendant denied plaintiff’s right to possession, alleged that if she had defaulted her default had been cured within the 60 days and if not she had been prevented from so doing by the wilful acts of plaintiff. Those acts consisted of permitting defendant to continue drilling operations, of supplying her with fuel, oil and water and of…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Callahan v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Perkins v. BlauthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Green v. General Petroleum Corp.California Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Dabney v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  5. McConnell v. Corona City Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1906

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Basin Oil Co. v. Baash-Ross Tool Co.California Court of Appeal · 1954
  2. Cassinos v. Union Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1993
  3. Fey v. A. A. Oil Corp.Montana Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Wright v. RogersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  5. Baker v. PierceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API