Legal Opinion
Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Corn
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided January 4, 1932No. 479PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McDERMOTT, Circuit Judge.
On the first appeal of this case [(C. C. A.) 28 F.(2d) 168] it was held that the plaintiff’s bill stated a cause of action, and that the lease of the plaintiff (appellant here) covered the minerals under the right of way of the Midland Valley railroad. When the case came back to the trial court, the defendants answered that the lease was ambiguous, and therefore open to construction; and, if not, that by mutual mistake it failed to express the actual agreement of the parties. The trial court referred the issues so joined to W. P. Lilleston, Esq., as Special Master.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Hunt v. Rousmanier's AdministratorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- Hunt v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Snell v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co. of New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co. v. Government of the Philippine IslandsSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Brooks Bros. v. Brooks Clothing of California, Ltd.District Court, S.D. California · 1945
- United States v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
- General Motors Corporation v. Swan Carburetor Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1937
- Hayes v. Travelers Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1937
- Shell Petroleum Corporation v. HollowCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.