Legal Opinion

Gernt v. Cusack

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided November 24, 1900PublishedCited by 7 opinions

EROM PETS TRESS. Appeal from Chancery Court of Fentress County. T. J. Fisher, Ch.

1Opinion of the CourtBeard, J.

The original hill in this cause avers that, on February 11, 1896, complainant, Bruno Gernt, secured from Hanckey & Cole an option on their interests in certain oil leases in lands in Overton, Pickett and Fentress Counties, at the price of $10,000, and that, relying upon the ability of his co-complainant, Fry, and of the defendant, James Cusack, to aid him materially in disposing of this option at a profit, on that day he entered into a written contract with them, in which, after reciting this option, and that .it terminated “February last, 1896,” it was stipulated that, in consideration of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bradshaw v. VanValkenburgTennessee Supreme Court · 1896
  2. McKeldin v. GouldyTennessee Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Bank v. CarpenterTennessee Supreme Court · 1896

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Maxwell v. Land Developers, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1972
  2. Russell v. ZanoneCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1966
  3. Louisville & N. R. v. United States Iron Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Jenkins v. DeWarTennessee Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Maxwell v. Land Developers, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1972

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