Legal Opinion · Dissent

Howard v. Dillard

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided January 14, 1947No. 31448Published

1DissentHurst, C. J.

The-majority holds that the two paragraphs between the description and the haben-dum clause were intended to be effective only during the lifetime of the grantor and that since his death they cannot be looked to for any purpose. No such contention is made by the parties. Both the plaintiff and defendants contend that these clauses are still in force, but they disagree as to their effect. The plaintiff contends that, under these clauses, she as executrix and residuary legatee has the exclusive right to manage and control the leasing and development of the lands covered by the conveyance,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Earp v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  2. Carroll v. BowenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
  3. Wilson v. OlsenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
  4. Trumbla v. State Ex Rel. Commissioners of Land OfficeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1942
  5. Hampton v. KesslerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1944

7 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