Loveall v. Beverley

JOHNSON, J.,

pro

tem.

This is an action to quiet title to plaintiff’s interest in certain real property situated in Los Angeles County against claims of defendant based on an agreement which in terms gave defendant, for a limited period, an option for an oil lease.

The complaint alleges ownership and possession by plaintiff of a tract of land comprising 8.77 acres, and an adverse claim by defendant which is without right. The answer denies the allegations of the complaint, and alleges that by a written agreement dated November 23, 1921, plaintiff agreed to lease the property in suit to defendant or his nominees for the purpose of prospecting for and developing oil and other substances, but that plaintiff had refused to perform, notwithstanding defendant’s readiness to perform his obligations; and defendant prays that his interest under the agreement be established and plaintiff be required to perform on her part. The court found that plaintiff owned a life interest in, and was in possession of, the property; and that by the agreement of November 23, 1921, plaintiff gave the defendant the right to obtain and draw a lease of plaintiff’s interest in the property for the purpose of prospecting for and developing oil and other substances,

[575]

with provision for a royalty of one-sixth of such oil as might be produced and for a rental of a certain fixed sum for the first twelve months and a larger fixed sum for the next twelve months; and that the agreement had been recorded in the records of Los Angeles County. The court further found that on May 18, 1922, plaintiff gave defendant written notice that he had failed to comply with the terms of the agreement or of the lease, and that unless he did comply and pay the agreed rent within thirty days, plaintiff would terminate the agreement and lease. There are findings, in addition, that defendant did not comply with the agreement; that his rights had terminated, and that plaintiff had not failed or refused to comply with her part of the agreement. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff quieting her title, and from this judgment defendant appeals.

The evidence shows that the agreement of November 23, 1921, was one whereby, in consideration of one dollar, plaintiff gave defendant “the exclusive right to obtain and draw up a lease upon my property,” being the property described in the complaint and comprising 8.77 acres. The agreement specifies certain terms and conditions of the proposed lease, including royalty and cash rentals as found by the court; and it provides further that “the right to draw a lease shall extend to the 8th day of Dec. 1921, and if