# MacNicol v. E. Coalinga Oil Fields Corp.

> California Supreme Court · August 27, 1943 · 22 Cal. 2d 742

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546546

## Case

- **Full name:** LEE ALEX MacNICOL, Appellant, v. EAST COALINGA OIL FIELDS CORPORATION (A Corporation), Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 27, 1943
- **Citations:** 22 Cal. 2d 742; 140 P.2d 793; 1943 Cal. LEXIS 218
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Traynor
- **Judges:** Shenk, Traynor
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546546

## Opinion text

TRAYNOR, J., dissenting.
It is my opinion that when the defendant consented to the Terry lease it relinquished its right to participate in the profits from operations under that lease. The lease provides explicitly for the disposition of profits from the wells, permitting Terry to retain seven-eighths of the price for oil produced, and requiring him to pay one-eighth to the lessors. Having consented to this lease and reserved only its rights “in, on, or to any lot or lots not leased to Zeb A. Terry,” defendant was bound by the terms of distribution provided in the lease. Moreover, under its contract with plaintiff, defendant had no more than the right to 20 per cent of the net profits arising “from the sale of oil derived from any well or wells which the East Coalinga Oil Fields Corporation may drill.” Nowhere in this language is there a basis for the reservation of a right to profit from wells drilled by others after defendant waived its exclusive right to drill.
Nor can I agree with the majority opinion that Civil Code sections 831 and 1112 relate only to streets and highways that have “an actual or prospective existence for the use of the abutting land.” It has been the established law of this state that a conveyance describing the property by reference to a recorded map that shows the property bounded by a street, passes the grantor’s title up to the center of the street even though the dedication of the street was never accepted, or *752 the street was never opened or improved (Brown v. Bachelder, 214 Cal. 753 [ 7 P.2d 1027 ]), or it was abandoned before the conveyance was made. (Anderson v. Citizen’s Savings & T. Co., 185 Cal. 386, 393 [ 197 P. 113 ]. See also Allan v. City and County of San Francisco, 7 Cal.2d 642, 649 [ 61 P.2d 1175 ]; Gramer v. City of Sacramento, 2 Cal.2d 432, 438 [ 41 P.2d 543 ]; Machado v. Title Guarantee & T. Co., 15 Cal.2d 180, 185 [ 99 P.2d 245 ]; Tiffany, Real Property, (3rd ed. 1939) 106, 107.) This court expressly withheld approval of dictum to the contrary in Elliott v. McIntosh, 41 Cal.App. 763, 769 [ 183 P. 692 ], relied upon in the majority opinion.
Edmonds, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546546. Public record. Not legal advice.