In 17th District Court
Los Angeles, Ca
Case No. 4437

R. S. Baker et al
Vs.
The California Star Oil Works Company

DEFENDANTS ANSWER

Filed June 17th, 1878
In the District Court of the 17th Judicial District of the State of California, in and for Los Angeles County

R. S. Baker and E. F. Beale - Plaintiffs
Vs.
The California Star Oil Works Company, a Corporation, Sanford Lyon, Christopher Leaming and F. B. Taylor – Defendants


Now comes the defendant the California Star Oil Works Company, and for answer to the complaint of the plaintiff.

Denies that on the 12th day of April, 1876, or at any other time, the plaintiffs were the exclusive owners, or in the exclusive possession of the premises described in the complaint, or that at said, or any time, they were the owners, or possessed, of any greater or other interest in the premises described in the complaint, than an undivided three sevenths interest in said premises described in said complaint, said premises being held by plaintiffs and defendants Lyon, Leaming, and others, as tenants in common.

Defendant denies that R. S. Baker is the owner of all the premises described in the complaint and defendant, on information and belief, denies that the said R. S. Baker is the owner of any, or greater, interest in the premises described in said complaint, then an undivided interest of three sevenths, such interest being the above mentioned undivided interest of plaintiffs, said Beale having, as defendant alleges on information and belief, since the execution of the agreement in the complaint mentioned, transferred his interest in said premises to plaintiff Baker.

Defendant denies that on April 12, 1876, or at any time, the plaintiffs were seized or possessed of said premises except as tenants in common with others, and to the extent of an interest of three sevenths as aforesaid, or that plaintiffs on said day, or at any time, leased the said premises to Reuben Denton, but admits and alleges that on or about said day, plaintiffs and defendants Lyon and Leaming, as parties of the first part, and said Denton, as party of the second part, did execute the agreement or instrument set out in the complaint.

Defendant denies that said Denton by said instrument or agreement covenanted or agreed to operate or use the oil or petroleum wells or any of them constantly during the term of said agreement or for any other time, and denies, on information and belief, that said Denton at any time, or in any way, agreed or covenanted to use or operate said wells or either of them constantly for any time, or at all.

Defendant denies that the value per barrel of crude oil at the wells or said premises since the 12 day of April, 1876, and up to the present time, is or has been of the value of three dollars in gold coin, or that it has been of any other or greater value then the sum of one dollar and fifty cents in gold coin, per barrel.

Defendant admits that it has not delivered to plaintiffs and said Lyon and Leaming or any of them the oil agreed to be delivered to them under said agreement, but denies that due or any demands for such oil has ever been made of defendant by the plaintiff or said Lyon or Leaming or any of them, and denies that it has neglected or refused to deliver the one eighth product of the wells to the parties entitled thereto, or to pay to said plaintiffs or said Lyon and Leaming, the so called rental of said premises.

Defendant denies further that it has in any way or at any time refused or neglected to account or failed to account to said to said persons or to either of them, but alleges, upon the other hand, that it has always been ready to account for such oil, and before the institution of this suit, so notified the plaintiffs. And defendant denies, upon information and belief, that there is now due, or has ever been due or owing from defendant to plaintiffs or either of them, any greater or larger amount of said one eighths product of said wells, than three sevenths of such one eighths.

Defendant denies, on information and belief, that plaintiffs are, or have ever been, entitled to have or receive of or from this defendant all the rental or oil reserved to the parties of the first part in, and under, said agreement, or are or ever have been, entitled to more then three sevenths of the same, and denies that defendants Lyon and Leaming claim at this time, or at the institution of this suit, to have any interest in said rental, and denies that they did not at any time have any right or interest in, or to, said rental, but avers that at the time of said agreement was executed, that said Lyon and Leaming were together the owners of an undivided interest of one seventh in and to said premises; that as defendant is advised and alleges upon information and belief, the other co-tenants of plaintiffs and Lyon and Leaming are entitled to a pro rata share of said one eighth rental or share reserved in said agreement, and that if such be the case then said Lyon and Leaming were entitled until they transferred their interest as herein after stated to one seventh of said one eighth product, but if it should be held that the whole one eighth must be paid and delivered to the parties of the first part in said agreement, then and in that case, as defendant alleges on information and belief, the interest of said Lyon and Leaming and their assigns in one eighth of the product would be one fourth thereof.

And defendant further alleges upon information and belief, that on or about the [blank] day of September 1876, the said Lyon and Leaming sold and conveyed all their right title and interest in, and to, said premises and in, and under, said agreement to defendant F. B. Taylor.

Defendant denies that at any time F. B. Taylor, or any one, entered into a fraudulent conspiracy or a conspiracy of any other kind or character with this defendant or any other person for the purpose of enabling the said Taylor fraudulently or otherwise to acquire any property of the plaintiff R. S. Baker, or for any other purpose whatever or at all.

This defendant denies that in pursuance of a fraudulent or other conspiracy with F. B. Taylor, the said Taylor on or about the 28th day of October 1877, or at any other time, acquired any pretended or other interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to the said R. S. Baker.

Defendant denies that in pursuance of any fraudulent or other conspiracy with defendant F. B. Taylor, the said Taylor at any time acquired any pretended or other interest in the said so called rental, and denies that said Taylor has no right or interest in said so-called rental.

Defendant admits, on information and belief, that said F. B. Taylor claims four sevenths interest in said oil and in said premises, and avers, on information and belief, that he acquired the same honestly and bona fide by conveyances for a valuable consideration from the owners thereof, who were at the time tenants in common of said plaintiffs of said premises.

This defendant denies that the plaintiff, R. S. Baker, is now the owner of all the premises described in the complaint, or any greater interest than three sevenths, or that he is entitled to the possession of said premises or any part thereof.

This defendant denies that for more than twelve months last past, or for any other period of time, it has continually or otherwise refused to operate or use the wells described in the complaint, or any or either of them, as covenanted and agreed in the agreement set fourth in the complaint.

Denies that by any failure or act of this defendant the product of said wells has been greatly lessened and impaired, or greatly lessened or impaired, or lessened or impaired, at all.

Denies that the product of said wells will be almost entirely lost, or lost at all, or that there will be any loss whatever if this defendant continues to use and operate, or use or operate, said wells as it is now doing and has done.

Denies that by reason of the manner in which said wells are operated by this defendant, or by any other reason whatever, that the plaintiffs, or the premises described in the complaint, will sustain material or irrevocable damage or injury, or any damage or injury whatever, or that the interest of property of said plaintiffs in said oil, or in said premises, will be almost entirely lost, or will be lost or damaged at all.

Denies that for the proper or workmanlike use or operation of the wells described in plaintiff’s complaint, it is essential that the flow of the oil thereof should be constant, or unimpeded, and avers that such use and operation is to be determined by the character of said wells, and that only one of said wells is a well flowing from natural forces, and that only intermittently, and that the other three are what are called pumping wells in which the oil is raised to the surface by artificial forces.

Defendant denies that it has for more than twelve months last past, or for any other period of time whatever, constantly or otherwise checked and suppressed, or checked or suppressed, the flow of oil from said wells, or that it still continues to check or suppress the flow of oil from said wells, or that by reason of any act of this defendant said wells have sustained, or will sustain, great irreparable, permanent, or other injury, or that the plaintiffs have sustained, or will sustain, great or irreparable or other loss.

The defendant admits that other and different wells from those described in the complaint are being found in the same vicinity by other and different parties, but avers that none of them are closer than one half mile, and denies, on information and belief, that any of said wells tap the same deposit that supplies the wells described in the complaint, and defendant denies that it has in any way checked or suppressed the flow of oil from any of the wells mentioned in said agreement, or that by the mode of operating the said wells by this defendant the oil in said deposit, if any such exists (which this defendant does not admin) will be forced to find an outlet elsewhere, or that the yield of said wells is, or will be, greatly or otherwise diminished in any way or to the great or irreparable loss of plaintiffs.

Defendant denies that it has threatened to use or operate the wells described in the complaint in a negligent, injurious, or unworkmanlike manner, and denies that if it is allowed to keep possession of said wells and premises that it will use or operate the same in a negligent, ruinous, or unworkmanlike manner, or that by any act of this defendant the plaintiff or said premises will sustain any damage whatever.

Defendant denies, on information and belief, that the product of said wells has upon an average, since said agreement was executed, exceeded six hundred barrels per month.

For a further and separate defense herein the defendant, on information and belief, denies that the plaintiff Baker is, or ever has been, the owner of the premises described in the complaint, or of any greater interest therein then an undivided interest of three sevenths, or that the plaintiffs, or either of them, have ever been entitled to a greater interest or proportion of the one eighth of the oil produced under said agreement then three sevenths of said one eighth. It alleges, on information and belief, that at the time said agreement was executed, said premises were held by diverse persons as tenants in common, among which were the plaintiffs and the defendants Lyons and Leaming; that plaintiffs owned together said interest of three sevenths, and said Lyon and Leaming together an undivided interest of on seventh in said premises, the other interests being held by other of their co-tenants, but after said agreement was made and on or about the [blank] day of September 1876, defendant Taylor purchased, and there was conveyed and assigned to him, all the rights, title, and interest of said Lyon and Leaming in, and to, said premises, as well as in and under said agreement, and also purchased, and there was conveyed to him, all the rights of the other co-tenents, except plaintiffs, in and to said premises, and in and under said agreement to the extent of an undivided interest of three sevenths and of an equitable interest in and to the remaining one seventh.

That said Taylor then and there notified this defendant of his rights in the premises and under said lease, and not to pay or deliver to plaintiff more than three sevenths of said one eighth of the product of said wells, and demanded the defendant to account to him for the recurring four sevenths of one eighth product.

Defendant further alleges that it has at all time since the 5th day of May 1876, when said agreement was assigned to it, properly and in a workmanlike manner, operated and used said wells, and each of them, and has always been, ready to deliver to the parties entitled thereto the one eighth of the product of the oil reserved in said agreement, or to purchase the same as in said agreement stipulated.

That said Taylor has also notified defendant that he acquiesces in said agreement; that he did not believe defendant was working or proposed to work or operate said wells in an unskillful or unworkmanlike manner, and did not wish a receiver appointed, and never had agreed or assented to the appointment of any receiver, but that upon the other hand, so far as his interest was concerned, allowed and permitted defendant to remain in possession of said premises and operate the wells upon the same as in said agreement stipulated.

Greathouse and Blanding
Attorneys for Defendant



Joseph S. Taylor being first duly sworn deposes and says that he is an officer, to wit Secretary, of the California Star Oil Works Company, one of the defendants in the above entitled action; that he has read the foregoing answer and knows the contents thereof and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated in information or belief, and as to these matters that he believes it to be true.

J. S. Taylor
June 15, 1878