Brown v. Homestake Exploration Co.
Montana Supreme Court
1DissentJustice Angstman
In the view I take of this ease, reversible error was committed in adopting the “well- cost” rule as the measure of damages. If we take the contract as amplified by the preliminary oral negotiations, we still have a contract which does not specify the number of wells that defendants should drill. Their obligation under the contract, as amplified by the oral evidence, was simply to do such drilling as a reasonably prudent oil and gas operator under all the circumstances would have drilled in the exercise of reasonable diligence. The court so instructed the jury. The jury was also instructed…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. BarkerTexas Supreme Court · 1928
- Blair v. Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Alford v. DennisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1918
- Howerton v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1910
- Fox Petroleum Co. v. BookerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.