Courter Oil Co. v. Oklahoma City

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Courter Oil Co. v. Oklahoma City

1934 OK 209, 31 P.2d 596, 167 Okla. 633, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 639

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 3, 1934

Docket22275

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1934 OK 209 (Courter Oil Co. v. Oklahoma City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Courter Oil Co. v. Oklahoma City, 1934 OK 209, 31 P.2d 596, 167 Okla. 633, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 639 (Okla. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

McNEILL, J.

This appeal involves the failure of the Courter Oil Company, plaintiff in error, to post a bond in the supi of $200,000, as required by Ordinance 3944 of the city of Oklahoma City in reference to drilling of an oil and gas well within the TJ-7 drilling zone of said city.

We consider it unnecessary to discuss this question. This same question has received our consideration. See Gant v. Oklahoma City, 150 Okla. 86, 6 P. (2d) 1065; Gant v. Oklahoma City, 160 Okla. 62, 15 P. (2d) 833, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, 289 U. S. 99, 77 L. Ed. 1058, 53 S. Ct. 530; C. C. Julian Oil & Royalties Co. v. Oklahoma City, 167 Okla. 384, 29 P. (2d) 952, and Hud Oil & Refining Co. v. Oklahoma City, 167 Okla. 457, 30 P. (2d) 169; and Morgan Petroleum Co. v. Oklahoma City, 167 Okla. 632, 31 P. (2d) 594.

Judgment affirmed.

CULLISON., V- C. J., and SWINDALL, ANDREWS, OSBORN, and BUSBY, JJ„ concur. RILEY, C. J., and BAYLESS and WELCH, JJ., absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McNEILL, J.

This appeal involves the failure of the Courter Oil Company, plaintiff in error, to post a bond in the supi of $200,000, as required by Ordinance 3944 of the city of Oklahoma City in reference to drilling of an oil and gas well within the TJ-7 drilling zone of said city.

We consider it unnecessary to discuss this question. This same question has received our consideration. See Gant v. Oklahoma City, 150 Okla. 86, 6 P. (2d) 1065; Gant v. Oklahoma City, 160 Okla. 62, 15 P. (2d) 833, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, 289 U. S. 99, 77 L. Ed. 1058, 53 S. Ct. 530; C. C. Julian Oil & Royalties Co. v. Oklahoma City, 167 Okla. 384, 29 P. (2d) 952, and Hud Oil & Refining Co. v. Oklahoma City, 167 Okla. 457, 30 P. (2d) 169; and Morgan Petroleum Co. v. Oklahoma City, 167 Okla. 632, 31 P. (2d) 594.

Judgment affirmed.

CULLISON., V- C. J., and SWINDALL, ANDREWS, OSBORN, and BUSBY, JJ„ concur. RILEY, C. J., and BAYLESS and WELCH, JJ., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1934 OK 209, 31 P.2d 596, 167 Okla. 633, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/courter-oil-co-v-oklahoma-city-okla-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack