Legal Opinion

Coursey v. Fairchild

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 26, 1967No. 41093PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McINERNEY, Justice:

The mortgagor (borrower) gave a deed to minerals underlying a portion of mortgaged premises to mortgagee (lender) as additional consideration for lender’s agreement to extend payment on an existing mortgage indebtedness and to accept a renewal note secured by a new mortgage. The question to be decided here is whether this deed was subject to cancellation, on redemption of the land from the lien of the new mortgage, because the mineral conveyance fell within the prohibition of 42 O.S.1961, §§ 10 and 11.

Borrowers, the Fairchilds, are owners of 718 acres of land which were…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Balduff Et Ux. v. GriswoldSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1900
  2. Holden Land & Live Stock Co. v. Inter-State Trading Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1912
  3. Worley, Receiver v. CarterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  4. Page v. TurkSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
  5. Mills v. ReneauSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1965

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Bayly, Martin & Fay, Inc. v. PickardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
  2. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, Chickasha, Oklahoma v. NathSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
  3. Virginia Beach Fed. Sav. Ass'n v. WoodCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
  4. Lincoln Mortgage Investors v. CookSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
  5. Sooner Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Oklahoma Central Credit UnionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989

25 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