Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gray v. Stillman

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 26, 1961No. 38693Published

1DissentJackson, Justice

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a deed should be interpreted and the intention of parties ascertained in the same manner as other written contracts. Rush v. Champlin Refining Co., Okl., 321 P.2d 697; Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, 179 Okl. 561, 66 P.2d 1069. The intention of the parties controls, and when a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible. The whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Oliver v. PiattSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
  2. Langehennig v. HohmannTexas Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
  4. May v. RitchieSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
  5. Fox's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882

29 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