Texas Co. of Mexico, SA v. Roos
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
We come now to dispose of the various contentions of the parties.
As to the accounting. In our opinion the contract as written did not confer upon the Mexican company, as assignee of Brooks, the right to take over the oil and account to Roos on the basis of its value at the wells. In several places the contract speaks of accounting for all oil produced at the prices realized upon sales, but never once of an accounting upon any other basis. Besides, all net profits were required to be distributed in proportion to the shares of the parties interested. The inference is clear…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Miller v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Peterson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Porter v. Pittsburg Bessemer Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Kishi v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1925
3Cited by18 opinions
- Fisser v. International BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
- Weisser v. Mursam Shoe CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Taylor v. Standard Gas & Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1938
- Eastmount Construction Company and American Surety Company v. Transport Manufacturing & Equipment CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1962
- Bee Bldg. Co. v. DanielCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.