Court Opinion

ID: 9747349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:12:15.746888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:23.124044
License: Public Domain

JONES, Judge
(dissenting).
It is my view that the term “use” as set out in the reservation is not sufficient to cover the right on the part of plaintiff to remove and dispose of the oil and gas.
Oil and gas while in the ground are a part of the corpus of the property. Taking them out and disposing of them is not merely a use of the property, but is a removal and sale of a part of the body of the property. The reservation of the right to use the property does not so limit a deed that is otherwise complete as to permit the grantor to sell the property or any part thereof.
While this viewpoint is somewhat weakened by the stated purpose of the transfer, to wit, “widening and straightening the Sacramento River,” yet when the whole instrument is considered, it seems to me that the stated purpose is the reason for making the deed rather than a limitation that would make the transfer a mere easement.
In my judgment this reservation is in-4 sufficient to support plaintiff’s claim.