Legal Opinion

Fry v. Hurst

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided January 24, 1956No. 36532Published

1Opinion of the Court

293 P.2d 552 (1956)

Hugh A. FRY et al., Plaintiffs in Error,

v.

W.B. HURST et ux., Defendants in Error.

No. 36532.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

January 24, 1956.

Rehearing Denied February 21, 1956.

Hollis Arnett, Mangum, for plaintiffs in error.

Walter Hubbell, Luther B. Eubanks, Walters, for defendants in error.

DAVISON, Justice.

This is a suit brought by W.B. Hurst and his wife, Jewell Hurst, as plaintiffs, against Hugh A. Fry and his wife, Susan S. Fry, as defendants, to quiet title to the surface of, and to five sixths undivided interest in the oil, gas and other minerals underlying a 201.36 acre…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Wood v. CarpenterSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Cooper v. FlesnerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
  3. Daniel v. TolonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
  4. Midland Valley R. Co. v. SutterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928
  5. Rose v. CookSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952

11 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