Penn Development Co. v. Stoner

254 F. 650, 166 C.C.A. 148, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1341
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 2, 1918
DocketNo. 3107
StatusPublished

This text of 254 F. 650 (Penn Development Co. v. Stoner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Penn Development Co. v. Stoner, 254 F. 650, 166 C.C.A. 148, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1341 (9th Cir. 1918).

Opinion

ROSS, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The suit was commenced in one of the superior courts of the state, from which it was transferred to the court below on motion of the defendants thereto. The complainant, being the owner of the lands involved, on which oil was then' being produced, and of the appurtenant property, [652]*652had executed a trust deed covering it to the Citizens’ Trust & Savings Bank of Dos Angeles to secure certain of its indebtedness, on which there remained unpaid $25,000, with certain interest thereon. One Stephen W. Dorsey, owner of a majority of the stock of the Pacific Petroleum Company, a corporation, then entered into a contract with the complainant, by which the latter agreed to sell, and he to buy, all of the said property, the consideration therefor being his assumption of and agreement to pay the indebtedness to the bank, $15,000 in cash on or before November 1, 1913, $25,000 par value of first mortgage bonds of the said Pacific Petroleum Company, and 11,000 shares of its stock, of the par value of $110,000, and all taxes upon the property accruing subsequent to the fiscal year 1912-1913 — the contract expressly providing that Dorsey should enter into possession of the property, and have the right to operate the wells thereon and to drill other wells, and to extract and sell the oil therefrom, during his performance of the contract, and that, in the event of the breach by him of any of the provisions of the agreement, the complainant should have tire right to foreclose the contract, in which event Dorsey should forfeit any money, bonds, or stock theretofore paid by him, and surrender possession of the premises. The contract further provided that it should bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties, and that upon full performance of its provisions by Dorsey the complainant would execute to him or to his assigns a conveyance of the title to the property.

Two days after the contract was executed D'o'rsey executed to the Pacific Petroleum Company an assignment of the contract, concluding with the clause, “Subject to all the conditions contained in said agreement upon the part of the party of the first part herein to be performed and which the party of the second part herein agrees to perform,”, which assignment does not appear to have been signed by the assignee. The answer, however, of the Pacific Petroleum Company, as well as other portions of the record, abundantly show that such assignment was accepted by that company, and that it delivered to the complainant, in pursuance of its contract with Dorsey, the’11,-000 shares of the stock of-the said Pacific Petroleum Company stipulated for, and denied that it had not paid the $15,000 in cash as provided for by the contract, and, while admitting the nondelivery of the $25,000 par value bonds of the Petroleum Company, set up that instead thereof it had delivered, and the complainant had accepted, “temporary receipts,” and what is designated in other portions of the record as “interim bonds.”

The record shows that, the interest on the $25,000 remaining of the indebtedness to the Citizens’ Trust & Savings Bank not having been paid when due, the trustee advertised the .property in question for sale, pursuant to the provisions of the trust deed securing the said indebtedness, designating March 11, 1914, as'the time when it would offer at public sale all of the said property in satisfaction of the lien thereon secured by the trust deed. Neither Dorsey nor the Pacific Petroleum! Company, the majority of the stock of which, as has been said, he owned, and who with said company owned or claimed to own various leasehold interests in other oil-bearing lands in California, [653]*653being able to pay the indebtedness against the property here in question, Dorsey went East in the endeavor to raise the necessary money, resulting in the incorporation of the appellant Penn Development Company, and in the execution February 17, 1914, of a contract between that company and the Pacific Petroleum Company, which, after reciting that—

“Whereas, Stephen W. Dorsey is the owner oí a majority of the capital stock of the Pacific Petroleum Company; and
“Whereas, the said Pacific Petroleum Company is under contract to purchase, in fee simple, certain oil properties in the state of California, and is the holder of certain leasehold interests in other oil properties in California; anti
“Whereas, the Pacific Petroleum Company has heretofore, under date of July 24, 1913, executed its mortgage or deed of trust to secure certain bonds upon the said property when acquired; and
"Whereas, certain certificates have been issued by the Pacific Petroleum Company, agreeing to deliver bonds if and when issued; and
“Whereas, certain of the agreed purchase price has not been paid on certain of the properties under contract of purchase as aforesaid; and
“Whereas, certain underlying mortgages assumed by the Pacific Petroleum Company have not been paid; and
“Whereas, the Pacific Petroleum Company is indebted to various parties, and is without means to pay said indebtedness; and
“Whereas, the Pacific Petroleum Company is desirous of entering into an agreement under which its property may be, to such extent as may he found possible, preserved, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement; and
“Whereas, the property known as the Ventura-California property Is about to be sold in proceedings under a trust deed”

■ — expressly provided, among other things, as follows;

“First The Penn Development Company agrees to purchase at a sum not exceeding thirty thousand dollars ($30,000), at the forthcoming trustee’s sale, the title In fee simple of i he Ventura-California property [specifically describing the property in question]” — the Penn Development Company “to take title to the same in fee simple absolutely without conditions or trust; relations of any kind whatsoever, except the Penn Development Company shall forthwith enter into an option in tile form attached hereto as Exhibit A.
“Second. The Penn Development Company agrees to advance for the purpose of the preservation of the assets of the Pacific Petroleum Company the additional stun of thirty thousand dollars ($30.000) over and above the sum paid for acquiring the aforesaid Ventura-California property, which said sum shall be used and applied” to various specified purposes relating to the leasehold interests that have been referred to, and including “the payment; for labor and other claims against the Pacific Petroleum Company,” aggregating $6,500, and “$4,000 to be expended upon the cementing, redrilling, and bringing into operation of the two existing wells on the Ventura-California property. * * *
"Fourth.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Southern Pacific Railroad v. Allen
44 P. 796 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
Longmaid v. Coulter
55 P. 791 (California Supreme Court, 1898)
Odd Fellows' Savings Bank v. Brander
56 P. 1109 (California Supreme Court, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 F. 650, 166 C.C.A. 148, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penn-development-co-v-stoner-ca9-1918.