Legal Opinion

Marland Refining Co. v. Dunigan

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided October 14, 1924No. 13885PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

THREADGILL, C.

Defendant in error, as plaintiff, brought suit against plaintiff in error, as defendant, on an oil and gas drilling contract to recover for drilling a well to the depth of 1,668 feet at $2 per foot, and $450, balance due for money expended in the service of the defendant, after the defendant took possession of the well drilled to said depth.

The contract provided that plaintiffs should drill a well 2,150 feet, "or to the depth of the Mississippi lime, for the defendant ion the Arthur Bryant farm in Osage county, for $2 per foot. The defendant reserved the right to stop…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Ferris v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1892
  2. Hale v. TroutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  3. Osage Oil & Refining Co. v. Lee Farm Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1921
  4. Holiday Oil Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
  5. Elwood Oil & Gas Co. v. McCoySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Knupp v. HubbardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
  2. Whitney v. MillerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
  3. Columbian Fuel Corporation v. SkidmoreCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1948
  4. Meyers v. ZahnSupreme Court of Kansas · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API