Legal Opinion

Black v. Solano Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 18, 1931No. Docket No. 6500PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BISHOP, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff recovered judgment against the two appealing defendants based on his claim that he had an overriding royalty interest in the oil which each of the defendants bought. Defendants and plaintiff trace their respective rights to the oil back to a common source, but by different channels. The judgment against the defendant Solano Company is erroneous if it did not have constructive notice of the agreement whereby plaintiff acquired his interests. Judgment against both defendants is in error if the instrument on which plaintiff bases his claim was issued in violation of…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Tupman v. HaberkernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Pollak v. StauntonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Graciosa Oil Co. v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  4. People v. McCallaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  5. Brookshire Oil Co. v. Casmalia Ranch Oil & Dev. Co.California Supreme Court · 1909

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Callahan v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Mary Pickford Co. v. Bayly Bros., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Domestic & Foreign Petroleum Co. v. LongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  4. La Laguna Ranch Co. v. DodgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Western Oil & Refining Co. v. Venago Oil Corp.California Supreme Court · 1933

27 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