RIO BRAVO OIL CO. ET AL.
v.
WEED ET AL.

U.S. | 1933-02-06
Nos. 618 and 619
288 U.S. 603 Supreme Court of the United States (1933) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion

Full opinion text not available for this case.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Henley v. The United States, 396 F.2d 956 (Ct. Cl. 1968)
    …never possible, to the true intention of the parties. Fortner v. Johnson, 404 S.W. 2d 892,900 (Tex.Civ.App.1966), writ of error refused n. r. e.; Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. Weed, 121 Tex. 427, 50 S.W. 2d 1080, 1087, 85 A.L.R. 391 (Tex.1932), cert. denied, 288 U.S. 603, 53 S.Ct. 387, 77 L.Ed. 978 (1933). It is clear that the intention of the parties was that both the surface and the minerals were to be sold by Hill to Henley at one time for the total sum of $50 per acre. There was to be no separation of the miner…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw