Lockwood v. Frost
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the CourtWillson, C. J.
(after stating the facts above). The leases and option to purchase land covered by them were executed at the same time, as parts of the same transaction, and# together, therefore, constituted the contract between the parties. 13 O. J. 528. Conceding that the leases were assignable by the express terms thereof, appellants nevertheless insist that the option to purchase land covered by them, constituting part of the contract, was not assignable because personal to appellee. Therefore, they insist further, the assignment of that option by appellee to the oil corporation was void. Keeping in mind…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bateman v. . HopkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Le Vine v. WhitehouseUtah Supreme Court · 1910
- Beaton v. FussellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
- Kalklosh v. HaneyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1893
- Fordtran v. DunovantCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1909
3Cited by7 opinions
- Burford v. PoundersTexas Supreme Court · 1947
- Moore v. KirganCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1952
- Vanzandt v. HeilmanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1950
- Copeland v. BennettCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1951
- Copeland v. BennettCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1950
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.