Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
J. M. HODGSON, Appellant, v. MOUNTAIN & GULF OIL COMPANY, Appellee, 1927 — 20 F.2d 1022 · caselaw · US
General
J. M. HODGSON, Appellant, v. MOUNTAIN & GULF OIL COMPANY, Appellee
20 F.2d 1022·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1927
Before SANBORN, STONE, and KENYON, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
J. M. HODGSON, Appellant, v. MOUNTAIN & GULF OIL COMPANY, Appellee.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
July 12, 1927.
No. 6860.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Wyoming.
J. M. Hodgson, of Denver, Colo. (Floyd E. Pendell, of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellant.
Harold D. Roberts, of Denver, Colo. (Tyson S. Dines and Peter H. Holme, both of Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN, STONE, and KENYON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — STONE, Circuit Judge,]
STONE, Circuit Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court. This is an appeal from a decree (297 F. 269) entered upon dismissal of a bill in equity seeking to establish a right to a one-eighth interest in an oil and gas lease upon 160 acres of land in Wyoming, granted appellee under section 18 of the Act of February 25, 1920, 41 Stat. 437 (Comp. St. § 4640(4Í). This ease is one of several, differing mainly in the lessee involved and in the land covered. The first of these cases (James M. Hodgson v. Federal Oil & Development Co. et al.) was determined in this court (5 F. [2d] 442) and passed, by appeal, to the Supreme Court. Because of the pendency of that case in the Supreme Court and because the main issues of law were identical in that case and in this ease, this case has been held on submission to await the result in the Supreme Court. April 11, 1927, that ease was determined (James M. Hodgson v. Federal Oil & Development Co., 47 S. Ct. 502, 71 L. Ed. -), against appellant on the main issues of law involved therein. Those same issues are in this case and the determination in that case is directly controlling here. The result is that the decree herein must be and is affirmed.