STAFFORD v. GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Guy N. STAFFORD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, a corporation, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 22099.

Decided: May 27, 1957

Guy N. Stafford, in pro. per. Martin J. Weil, Sims Hamilton, Los Angeles, for General Petroleum Corp. Burke, Williams & Sorenson, Martin J. Weil, Los Angeles, for Joseph P. Cooney, as executor of the estate of R. P. Cooney, deceased. John W. Brooks, Long Beach, for Security-First Nat. Bank, and Security-First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles as executor of the estate of Jack Herley, deceased. Louis A. Audet, Los Angeles, for Wayne H. Fisher, as trustee for Walter H. Fisher Corporation, a dissolved corporation.

Plaintiff appeals from judgments of dismissal following the sustaining of general demurrers without leave to amend in an action for damages and for a judgment declaring to be void two final judgments, described in the complaint, that were rendered in two prior actions to recover royalties under a community oil and gas lease.

In one way or another, the claims which are the foundation of the present action, and which plaintiff seeks to revive, have been adjudicated in favor of the defendants herein by judgments that have long since become final. Howard v. General Petroleum Corp., 108 Cal.App.2d 25, 238 P.2d 145; Howard v. General Petroleum Corp., 114 Cal.App.2d 91, 249 P.2d 585; Howard v. General Petroleum Corp., 136 Cal.App.2d 168, 288 P.2d 308; Stafford v. Yerge, 129 Cal.App.2d 165, 276 P.2d 649; Stafford v. Yerge, 139 Cal.App.2d 851, 294 P.2d 721. It would be a waste of time and effort to retrace the monotonous course of the litigation. Anyone who is interested in its history will acquire complete information by reading the opinions in the cases we have cited. No facts are alleged in the complaint which cast doubt upon the validity of the former judgments or their conclusive effect. Anything we might add on the subject would not render any more secure the position of the defendants, and it would be wasted upon Mr. Stafford. He is convinced that the Howards had meritorious claims in 1948, which he acquired by assignment, and is apparently unable to comprehend the effect of the many judgments that have been rendered adverse to his contentions. We have said to him before, any say again, and in his own interest, that he has spent enough of his lifetime, to say nothing of prodigious efforts, in quest of a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

This should be the end of his search.

The judgments are affirmed.

SHINN, Presiding Justice.

PARKER WOOD and VALLȨ, JJ., concur.

Copied to clipboard