Legal Opinion

States v. Honolulu Consol. Oil Co.

District Court, S.D. California

Decided March 2, 1918No. B-46PublishedCited by 2 opinions

In, Equity. Suit by the United States against the Honolulu Consolidated Oil Company.

1Opinion of the Court

RUDKIN, District Judge.

The lands in controversy in this case are within the presidential withdrawal of September 27, 1909, and the rights of the parties depend largely upon the construction to be given the proviso to the so-called Pickett Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 847, c. 421 [Comp. St. 1916, §§ 4523-4525]), which reads as follows:

“The rights of any person who, at the date of any withdrawal order heretofore or hereafter made, is a bona tide occupant or claimant of oil or gas bearing lands, and who, at such date, is in diligent prosecution of work leading to the discovery of oil or gas,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. Grass Creek Oil & Gas Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1916
  2. Consolidated Mut. Oil Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917
  3. United States v. North American Oil ConsolidatedDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1917

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Porter v. South Omaha Packing Co.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1946
  2. United States v. Standard Oil Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1920

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

Powered by the Exa API