Watson Land Co. v. Rio Grande Oil Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J. pro tem.
The plaintiff has appealed, in each action, from that part of the judgment which recognized that the defendants had rights under an oil lease on the west thirty of some fifty-seven acres to which plaintiff’s title was otherwise quieted. It is plain, from the evidence and findings, that, except for very limited purposes, the rights of the defendants under the oil lease had terminated because there had not been a continued drilling of new wells on the demised property after the completion of the first well, unless the failure to drill the additional wells was excused, and the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hind v. Oriental Products Co., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1925
- Hedlund v. Sutter Medical Service Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
- Richter v. AdamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Latta v. Da RozaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Buford v. Florin Fruit Growers' Assn.California Supreme Court · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- J. C. Millett Co. v. Park & Tilford Distillers Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1954
- Associated Lathing & Plastering Co. v. Louis C. Dunn, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1955
- Arvin-Kern Co. v. B. J. Service, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1960
- Guipre v. Kurt Hitke & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1952
- Covely v. C.A.B. Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1952
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.