Wolfe v. Stanford
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the CourtBusby, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Hughes county granting a partition of lands subject to oil, gas, and mineral rights and refusing to grant the same relief in connection with such rights. In their brief the parties use the term “surface rights” to refer to that portion of the fed remaining after elimination of the oil, gas, and mineral rights. The term is legally inaccurate, but convenient. In this opinion we shall use it in the same sense for the sake of brevity. For the same reason we shall employ the terms “oil rights” and “royalty” in a general sense to include…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Earp v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
- Hill v. RenoIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
- Henderson v. ChesleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1925
- Cuff v. KosloskySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
- Moody v. WagnerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Schnitt v. McKellarSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
- De Mik v. CargillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1971
- Condrey v. CondreySupreme Court of Florida · 1957
- Daughtrey v. DaughtreyMississippi Supreme Court · 1985
- Holland v. ShafferSupreme Court of Kansas · 1947
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.