Legal Opinion

Cosden Oil & Gas Co. v. Hendrickson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided March 27, 1923No. 13518PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKennamer, J.

This case was tried by the court below without a jury, and the court’s findings of fact are as follows:

“1st. That the land covered by the oil and gas lease in controversy is the allotment of the defendant Thomas Hendrick-son, who is a duly enrolled Creek Indian citizen .of 1-16 blood.
“2nd. That on the 20th day of March, 1916, James Hendrickson, as the guardian of said Thomas Hendrickson, then a minor, made, executed and delivered to the General Investment Company an oil and gas mining lease, in due form, for a period of five years from that date, on said -land; that thereafter, to wit, on the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hobbs v. BoatrightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
  2. Winona Oil Co. v. BarnesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  3. Carlile v. National Oil & Development Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  4. Saylor v. CrookerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
  5. Stevens v. ElliottSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. De Burgh v. De BurghCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Carlisle v. National Oil & Dev. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
  3. Nelson v. HamraSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
  4. Camp v. CampSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1945
  5. Popp v. MungerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928

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