Legal Opinion

Roussel v. Russell

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided May 12, 1959No. 38264PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BLACKBIRD, Justice.

The present appeal involves an oral agreement, under which plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was to pay defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, his costs in procuring for defendant an oil and gas lease, or leases, on the undivided interests of persons in various branches of the Quigley Family, referred to as the “Quigley Heirs”, comprising a 96 or 98-acre part of “the: Northeast Quarter of Section Thirty (30), Township Ten (10) North, Range Twenty (20) W. I. M.”, in Washita County, and said to be “on the edge” of the Elk City Pool…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. St. Louis, El Reno & Western Railway Co. v. OliverSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1906
  2. Love v. Kirkbride Drilling & Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
  3. National Tank Co. v. ScottSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1942
  4. Blackwell, Enid & Southwestern Railway Co. v. BeboutSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1907
  5. Holland v. HoytMichigan Supreme Court · 1866

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Sarber v. HarrisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1962
  2. Booker v. Sears Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
  3. Booker v. Sears Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
  4. Clay v. Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1997
  5. Clay v. Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1997

3 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