Legal Opinion

Davis v. Patterson

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 20, 1930Published

1Opinion of the CourtKirby, J.

(after stating the facts). Appellants insist that the court erred in limiting the terms of the drilling contract -between Haskell and Hoffman, assigning one-half of seven-eighths of the oil produced to the payment of the specified consideration for drilling* the wells to a period of two years. The provisions of the contract relating’ to the payment of the consideration are as follows:

“In consideration of the drilling of the above described wells, and each of them, the party of the first part agrees to assign, and does hereby assign, to the party of the second part one-half of seven-eighths of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Pilliod v. Angola Railway & Power Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1910
  2. State ex rel. W. E. Dooley & Co. v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Hoffecker v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1923
  4. First Nat. Bank v. Powell Bros. & Sanders Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1911

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

Powered by the Exa API