Legal Opinion

Hill v. General Petroleum Corp.

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 20, 1932No. Docket No. 4538PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TUTTLE, J., pro tem.

The purpose of this action is to have it adjudged that a certain restrictive covenant in an oil lease is inoperative and unenforceable and to remove said covenant as a cloud upon the title to real property belonging to plaintiffs.

The complaint contains seven counts. Demurrers were sustained to the last four counts, and upon failure to amend the cause was tried upon the first three counts. The trial court found for defendants upon the issues raised, and judgment was entered that plaintiff take nothing. The appeal is prosecuted from the judgment.

The only contention made upon…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Downs v. KroegerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Becker v. Submarine Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1921

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Mitchel v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  2. Renner v. Huntington Etc. Oil & Gas Co.California Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Nourse v. KovacevichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  4. In re LandSource Communities, Development LLCUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · 2013
  5. Renner v. Huntington-Hawthorne Oil & Gas Co.California Supreme Court · 1952

4 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