Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cooke v. Kinkead

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 1, 1936No. 27459Published

1DissentMeNEILL, C. J.

This suit is brought to enjoin defendants in error from drilling an oil and gas well on b’oek 9, Howe’s Capitol addition to Oklahoma City, on the theory that the restrictive covenants applicable to said block deny such use for the reason that said block was restricted for residential purposes.

Chas. B. Cooke, plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, is the owner of improved property in the addition of which block 9 is a part, and alleges in substance that the defendant Knox B. Garvin is attempting to drill an oil and gas well upon said block and will dig cellars, slush pits, and erect steel…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Curlee v. WalkerTexas Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Clark v. . DevoeNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. Hano v. BigelowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
  4. Coughlin v. BarkerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
  5. Beals v. CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API