Legal Opinion

Ezzell v. Oil Associates, Inc.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 13, 1930PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, O. J.,

(after stating the facts). As will be seen from our statement of facts, the lease contains no express covenant as to the number of wells that should be drilled after the completion of the first one producing 011 or gas in paying quantities. It did not contain any covenant requiring the drilling of producing wells to prevent oil or gas from draining from the leased premises to the adjoining lands, where wells by other parties might be drilled and operated.

It is the contention of the lessors that there was an implied covenant, on the part of the lessee, to prosecute the development…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Blair v. Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
  2. Mansfield Gas Co. v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  3. Millar v. MauneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
  4. Mansfield Gas Co. v. ParkhillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
  5. Drummond v. AlphinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Doss Oil Royalty Co. v. Texas CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943
  2. Christmas v. RaleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976
  3. Sunbelt Exploration Co. v. Stephens Production Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
  4. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. GillerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
  5. Bodcaw Oil Co. v. Atlantic Refining Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1950

26 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