Keller v. King

California Court of Appeal Jan 20, 1931 No. Docket No. 7474.Published

Before: Craig

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a petitioner is not entitled to a writ of mandamus to revive or amend an oil and gas prospecting permit that was previously granted to its full legal extent and subsequently canceled due to the permittee's failure to commence operations.

Issues

Whether a petitioner is entitled to a new or amended prospecting permit after the original permit was granted and subsequently canceled for failure to perform drilling operations.
Whether the surveyor general can be compelled to act upon an original application that has already been fully satisfied and subsequently forfeited.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“That permit having been canceled for a violation of its terms and conditions, it has ceased to be and is no longer subject to amendment.”

“We have found no authority to compel the surveyor-general to again act upon an application which has not been held in abeyance”

“The peremptory writ of mandamus is denied.”

CRAIG, J.

The petitioner, a person other than the littoral or riparian proprietor, filed an application for a permit to prospect for oil and gas upon a submerged area along the Pacific coast in Santa Barbara County. Thereafter, and within a period of six months, the Standard Oil Company of California filed an application as littoral or riparian proprietor for a permit to prospect upon a portion of the same lands. The latter application was granted and the petitioner herein also received a permit to drill upon that portion of the lands described in his application not embraced in the permit to the littoral or riparian proprietor. Neither of the parties complied with the terms of said permits by commencing operations within the time prescribed by law, and their permits were forfeited and canceled by the state. Petitioner subsequently sought permission to drill upon the remainder of the area described in his application, which was refused, and he prays a writ of

mandamus

requiring the issuance either of “an amended permit or a new permit to prospect for oil and gas upon the lands described in said application and not included in the original state oil and gas prospecting permit issued to him”.

[245]

Chapter 303 of the Statutes of . 1921, pages 405, 409, provides that: “The surveyor general is hereby authorized . . . to grant to any person ... a prospecting permit ... to prospect for oil or gas . . . upon condition that the permittee shall begin drilling operations within six months from the date of the permit . . . ; provided, however, that in case of prospecting permits and leases to river beds, lake beds, overflowed, tide and submerged lands, the width or length of the prospecting permit or lease along the shore line, measured on an east and west or north and south line, shall not exceed one-quarter mile. . . . ; provided, further, however, that in case of an application for a permit or a lease covering tide, overflowed or submerged land by anyone other than the littoral or riparian proprietor, said littoral or riparian proprietor shall have six months within which to file an application for a permit or lease,

but if said littoral or riparian proprietor fails to comply with

the requirements of

Keller v. King

AI Brief

CRAIG, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief