Bayside Land Co. v. Dabney

NOURSE, J.

Plaintiffs sued to quiet title to certain real property situated in Orange County and to obtain a decree of forfeiture of a lease which had been given to the defendant Dabney for the purpose of drilling for oil. Plaintiffs had judgment and the appellants have appealed on a typewritten record.

The action is in two counts. One containing the usual allegations in a suit to quiet title and the other allegations to declare a forfeiture of an oil lease covering the lands described, consisting of 488 separate lots, 470 of which are owned by the plaintiff Bayside Land Company. The essential facts are stated in

Bayside Land Co.

v.

Dabney

(No. 6118),

ante,

p. 122 [265 Pac. 564].

On December 24, 1923, the plaintiff corporation commenced the former action to quiet title to the property owned by it alone upon the theory that the lease had been forfeited because of defendants’ failure to perform in ac

[128]

cordance with its terms. That action went to trial and resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant upon the single ground that the subsequent lessors had not joined with the plaintiff corporation in giving notices of forfeiture of the lease. All the other issues raised by the plaintiff in that suit, including the issue of nonperformance and breach by the defendant, were found in favor of the plaintiff. Pending an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment in the former action the subsequent lessors joined with the plaintiff corporation in serving upon the defendant a notice of forfeiture in accordance with the terms of section 13 of the original lease and, defendant having failed to remedy the breach or to continue drilling operations upon the premises this action was commenced by the plaintiff corporation and the subsequent lessors joined with it as plaintiffs against the defendant Dabney individually and the defendants Dabney, Ellis, and Harris as trustees for the Dabney Company and against the defendant Hammer, who, it was alleged, had some interest in the property, but fraudulently refused to join as a party plaintiff. The grounds of forfeiture alleged in the second complaint were the defendant’s failure to prosecute drilling operations of any character for a period of more than one year prior to the commencement of the action and the assignment by the defendant Dabney, contrary to the terms of the lease, to his co-defendant trustees of all his interest in the lease without the written or any consent of the lessors.