Eisleben v. Brooks
Citations
- 179 F. 86
- 102 C.C.A. 380
- 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4615
Syllabus
<p>1. Frauds, Statute of (§ 110*) — Contracts Relating to Real Property-Sufficiency of Description.</p> <p>A written contract, describing its subject-matter as the mineral rights on which the parties of the first part held options and such as they were in process of acquiring “in all or as much thereof as can be had of what is known as' the Ouita coal basin, in Pope and Yell counties, in the state of Arkansas, as shown by Branner’s Map of the Arkansas Geological Coal Survey, which basin approximates 10,000 acres, more or less,” held to contain a sufficient description of the lands to meet the requirement of the Arkansas statute of frauds (Kirby’s Dig. Ark. 1904, § 3654); the option contracts then held by the first parties, embracing over 5,000 acres, containing a specific description of the lands covered thereby.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Frauds, Statute of, Cent. Dig. §§ 225-236; Dec. Dig. §110.*]</p> <p>2. Mines and Minerals (§ 54*) — Contract of Sale — Measure for Breach.</p> <p>Where a contract for the purchase by defendants from' plaintiffs of the mineral rights in certain lands, for which plaintiffs held options, gave defendants the option to furnish funds to have the lands drilled, in which case they were bound to take only such as were shown to contain a coal vein, or to accept all the lands without drilling, in an action for breach of such contract by defendants by refusing to take the lands or to furnish the drilling fund, plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the contract price for all the lands and also the cost of drilling machinery purchased by them.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Mines and Minerals, Cent. Dig. § 151; Dec. Dig. § 54.*]</p> <p>3. Mines and Minerals (§ 54*) — Contract of Sale — Breach of Contract to Form Corporation — Damages.</p> <p>• In an action for breach of a contract by which defendants agreed to purchase from plaintiffs at a stated price the mineral rights in certain lands and to subscribe and pay for on
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- affirming severe sanctions over government’s protest that non-compliance with order stemmed from understaffing
- “(T)he public interest requires not only that Court orders be obeyed but further that Governmental agencies which are charged with the enforcement of laws should set the example of compliance with Court orders.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Riner
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.