Chandler v. Hibberd, 165 Cal. App. 2d 39 (1958)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=165+Cal.+App.+2d+39&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&case=17666091516506807369&scilh=0
This is really Superior Oil Company v. Richfield Oil Corporation.
Richfield is pumping on Section 36; Superior on Section 25. There is a fence line nominally on the Section 25/36 line and another about 10 chains south of the north line of 25. The south line of 36 is undisputed. Superior's Surveyor used the north fence for the north line of 25 and proportioned the 25/36 line. Richfield contends that it is an agreed boundary at the 25/36 fence (north of the proportioned line).
The trial court finds:
1. It's not the proportioned line.
2. Sets the true section line from topography (north of the 25/36 fence).
3. The 25/36 fence is an agreed boundary.
On appeal Superior wants the proportioned line and reverse on the agreed boundary. They got half of what they wanted, oops. The Appellate Court agrees no agreed boundary at the fence therefore the boundary is the section line and the trial court got it right using topography (better than proportioning).
Note footnote 10:
[fn. 10] 10. They cross-examined defendants' witness [William] Wattles for 46 days.
The Curt Brown Chronicles has a letter from Wattles in it which contains a lot more of the back story.
Does a company apply for an exploratory permit and then get the rights if they find something? If so, do they get the rights to the whole section?
Do the two companies own the sections in fee?
Interesting case.
No, the the private owners of the fee gave their names to the case.
The Oil Companies were leasing the respective properties for oil production from the private property owners.
