Legal Opinion

Holchak v. Clark

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 26, 1955No. 12854PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NORVELL, Justice.

This being the second appeal of this cause, we refer to our former opinion, Clark v. Holchak, Tex.Civ.App., 247 S.W.2d 463, and that of the Supreme Court, Clark v. Holchak, 152 Tex. 26, 254 S.W.2d 101, for a more complete statement of the case.

The limitation or condition of defeasance contained in the habendum clause of the royalty deed reads as follows:

“It is further agreed and herein stipulated that in case there is no paying production on said land on December 10, 1945, and for six months, thereafter, that this grant shall become null and void, and the minerals hereby…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Garcia v. KingTexas Supreme Court · 1942
  2. South Penn Oil Co. v. SnodgrassWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Clopton Rogers v. OsbornTexas Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Eastern Oil Co. v. CoulehanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Morrison v. SwaimCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1949

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Clifton v. KoontzTexas Supreme Court · 1959
  2. De Benavides v. Warren, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1984
  3. Midwest Oil Corporation v. WinsauerTexas Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Amoco Production Co. v. BraslauTexas Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Wiggins Bros. v. Department of EnergyTemporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1981

28 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