Legal Opinion

Tidal Refining Co. v. Charles E. Knox Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided January 12, 1926No. 16067PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

RUTH, C.

Plaintiff and defendant will be designated herein as they appeared in the trial court. Plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $452.12 from defendant for balance due on casinghead gas delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, and alleges defendant agreed to purchase all casinghead gas obtained from wells then drilled or thereafter to be drilled on a certain lease, and to pay therefor the “average current price in the. Oklahoma market of raw gasoline of like specifications,” during the months of shipment of such raw gasoline. There is no contention over the average current…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Oklahoma Hospital v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
  2. Boynton v. CrockettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1902
  3. Berquist v. ThomasSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
  4. Lamb v. UlrichSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  5. Jueschke v. SeeleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. MessinoSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
  2. Green v. CorrellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
  3. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. BellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
  4. Whiteneck Bassett v. WeaverSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
  5. Baker v. ChaneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934

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