Legal Opinion

Herbert v. Graham

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 16, 1925No. Docket No. 4863PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTyler, P. J.

Action to quiet title. The complaint is in the usual form. The answer sets forth that plaintiff and his wife had executed to defendant Graham a certain oil lease whereby they granted to him all the oil, gas, coal, sulphur, shale, and other minerals in and under the premises demised, and that this lease had been assigned to the appellants, who had entered upon the property and expended over $14,000 in sinking oil-wells, and had paid plaintiff the sum of $50 per quarter up to the thirty-first day of March, 1921, the date when drilling was commenced, as provided for in the lease. By an amended…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Utt v. FreyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. People v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Sauer v. MeyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Scheel v. HarrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  2. Riedman v. BarkwillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  3. Swigert v. StaffordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  4. Templar Mining Co. v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  5. Wallace v. ImbertsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961

1 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