Legal Opinion
Kaiser v. Crouch
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided December 5, 1972No. 43900PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DAVISON, Vice Chief Justice:
The proper disposition of this action and cross-action to quiet title depends upon the proper application of 15 O.S.1961, § 174, which says, “Time is never considered as of the essence of a contract, unless by its terms expressly so provided.”
There follows a statement of the undisputed facts which call for the application of § 174. The son of Gordon W. Kaiser and J. J. Kaiser, his wife (Plaintiffs) and a few of his fraternity brothers in Béta Tau Beta, a local fraternity at Southwestern State College, Weatherford, Oklahoma, induced plaintiffs, for a consideration…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cooper v. Ft. Smith & W. R. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Mitchell v. ProbstSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Crutchfield v. GriffinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
- Washoma Petroleum Co. v. Eason Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Federal Trust Co. v. CoyleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Arkla Energy Resources v. Roye Realty & Developing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1993
- Arkla Energy Resources v. Roye Realty And DevelopingCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1993
- United States ex rel. Federal Corp. v. Commercial Mechanical Contractors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1982
- United States v. Commercial Mechanical Contractors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1982