Legal Opinion

Hodges v. Miller

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided July 1, 1922No. 9712. [fn*]PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDunklin, J.

Since the overruling of the original motions for rehearing (238 S. W. 722), on February 25th of the current year, our Supreme Court, in the case of Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Patton (Tex. Com. App.) 238 S. W. 202, has, in effect, held that when one who grants an option to another for a fixed period of time himself wrongfully prevents an exercise of the option during that period he must give a reasonable time for its exercise after any obstruction which he has interposed has been removed. In Elkhart Carworks Co. v. Ellis, 113 Ind. 215, 15 N. E. 249, the following was said:

“If the grantor…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Texas Company v. W.H. DaughertyTexas Supreme Court · 1915
  2. National Oil & Pipe Line Co. v. TeelTexas Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Eastern Oil Co. v. CoulehanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Fulton v. RobinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1881
  5. McCallister v. Texas Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1920

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Miller v. HodgesTexas Commission of Appeals · 1924
  2. Continental Oil Co. v. Osage Oil & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
  3. Silverman v. EmersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
  4. Stine v. Oasis Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1926
  5. People's Trust Co. v. RileyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927

2 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