Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Lucky Thirteen Oil Syndicate v. Barrett

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided May 3, 1932No. 21586Published

1ConcurrenceSwindall, J.

I concur in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Riley. However, I desire to- express my views more fully than therein expressed upon the facts disclosed by the record.-

It is the contention of the defendants in error that the lease is void for the reason that no well wag drilled to the Wilcox sand within six months from the date of the lease. I -do not agree with the construction placed upon the lease by the defendants in error-If that were the only clause in the lease relating to drilling a well, then the contention of the defendants in error would be sound. However, we must consider all of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. ProbstSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
  2. Wiebener v. PeoplesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
  3. Standard Lumber Co. v. Miller & Vidor Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
  4. Shenners v. AdamsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
  5. R. T. Stuart & Co. v. GrahamSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926

4 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