Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. 3,035.73 Acres of Land

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided June 12, 1981No. 80-1620Published

1DissentMcMILLIAN, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. In my. opinion the agreement between the Broadheads and Tupelo Timber, Inc. was a bare option contract to purchase standing timber and not a timber deed.

Further, even assuming for the purposes of argument that this agreement was more than an option contract and the substantial equivalent of a timber deed, I do not agree that Tupelo was the owner of a compensable interest in property by virtue of this agreement.

I do not dispute that under pre-Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Arkansas law a deed to growing trees or standing timber authorizing the grantee to cut and remove…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Lynch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Omnia Commercial Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. Henry Quellmalz Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. RocheSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
  4. Davis v. KolbSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1978
  5. Pete Smith Co., Inc. v. City of El DoradoSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API