The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1916-03-26

trary to the charter of said corpora
tion, ultra wires, and therefore void
.. The plaintiff further alleges that
no valid meeting was called as pro.
vided by the bylaws Of said company,
and that the contract was never rati.
fled by the board of directors or the
Bull Head Oil company.
6. The plaintiff further alleged that
the contract was invalid for the rea.
son that the officer of the company
subscribing the name of the company
was without authority to sign the
same.
I. That the contract made with
the Producers Refining company was
invalid for the reason that the con.
tract in effect was an assignment Of
an interest in the lease of the COM
pany, which is a departmental lease
of full bloods' lands for oil and gas
purposes; that therefore said con
tract was of no force and effect un
less the same was approved by the
secretary of the interior.
S. That the pretended contract was
void for the reason that the Bull
Head Oil company and the other com
panies signing said contract, had no
power or authority to promote the
incorporation of new corporation,
towit, the Producers Refining conf
pany.
9. That the contract was void TO"
the reason that it was an attempt
upon the part of the directors OF the
Bull Head Oil company to contract
an obligation in excess of that which
the law permitted said company to
incur.
10. That the trustee named in the
6ontract, towit, the Guaranty state
bank of Ardmore, is without author
ity to act in the capacity
II. That the terms of said purport
ed contract were violated by the Pro
ducers Refining company in that al
though they had stipulated in the
contract that they would make =
contract for the sale of the residuum
of the oil on the best terms pos
sible they sold said residuum and
contracted to sell the same to the
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway
company for 40 cents a barrel at
time when they could have received
GO cents a barrel; that by reason of
the action of the promoters Of said
company and said company, the stock
of the Gainesville refinery was de-
preciated, and that therefore tho
contract should 10 rescinded.
-. That Evans, Thwirs and Smith,
with whom the contract was had,
secreted from the producers signing
said contract many material facts,
which if known to the producers,
would have induced them not to sign
and execute the same.
The petition further alleges that
the plaintiff has demanded that the
Bull Head Oil company prosecute suit
to cancel said contract, but that they
have refused to do so, and that there
fore he is compelled to bring this suit
for the use and benefit of himself
and those similarly situated.
The petition prays that the Bull
Head Oil company, its officers and
directors, be prevented and enjoined
from carrying out or attempting tI
carry out said pretended contract
and further to clear the cloud from
the title of the Bull Head Oil com
pany, caused by the placing of the
contract of record, and further for the
cancellation and rescission of said
contract.
The questions involved in this suit
affect more than a dozen operating
in the Healdton field, and
this litigation is likely the forerunner
of further litigation from other com
panies seeking like relief.