543 F.2d 548 (5th Cir. 1976), 76-1153, Golden Oil Co., Inc. v. Exxon Co., United States A.

Docket Nº:76-1153
Citation:543 F.2d 548
Party Name:GOLDEN OIL COMPANY, INC., and G. G. Weems, Individually, and d/b/a Golden Oil Company, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EXXON COMPANY, U.S.A. (a Division of Exxon Corporation), formerly Humble Oil& Refining Company, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:December 06, 1976
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 548

543 F.2d 548 (5th Cir. 1976)

GOLDEN OIL COMPANY, INC., and G. G. Weems, Individually, and

d/b/a Golden Oil Company, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

EXXON COMPANY, U.S.A. (a Division of Exxon Corporation),

formerly Humble Oil& Refining Company, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 76-1153

[*]

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

December 6, 1976

Page 549

Thomas B. Wheeler, New Orleans, La., Jack N. Price, Austin, Tex., John D. Lambert, Jr., Harry Nowalsky, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Bernard J. Caillouet, E. Burt Harris, Francis J. Mooney, Jr., New Orleans, La., Wm. Simon, Wm. R. O'Brien, Wm. J. Hunter, Jr., Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before WISDOM, GEE and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

GEE, Circuit Judge:

This appeal concerns a counterclaim made by Exxon in a case filed by Golden Oil Company and its president and owner, G. G. Weems. When Golden's responses to certain interrogatories failed to satisfy the district court as meeting the court's order to answer "fully," the court struck Golden's defense and granted summary judgment for Exxon on the counterclaim. We affirm.

In this counterclaim, Exxon alleged the existence of an open account upon which Exxon (then known as Humble Oil and Refining Company) supplied petroleum products and merchandise to Golden for resale. According to these allegations, Golden Oil owed Exxon.$134,047.65 on the account. Golden denied liability on the account generally, asserting that it had already paid some or all of the amounts claimed by Exxon.

During discovery, Exxon presented a detailed Statement of Account, asserting that the items and invoices credited and debited thereon constituted the account. Exxon requested an admission of its genuineness. Golden's response proved unsatisfactory to the district court, which ordered Golden to file a supplemental answer to the request for admission. Before Golden had filed these supplemental answers, Exxon served interrogatories which included the following questions:

  1. . . . With respect to each and every debit item shown on (the Statement of Account) which you might claim has been paid, provide the following information:

    1. The date of payment of each such debit item.

    2. The manner of payment of each such debit item, that is, by cash, by check or by assigned invoice.

    3. If any of such debit items were paid by assigned invoice, give the invoice number being assigned, the amount thereof and the date thereof,

    Page 550

    and the Credit Remittance Advice making reference to such assignment.

  2. . . . (I)n each instance where you deny a particular Request for Admission, give the exact reason or reasons for the denial thereof and references to the particular documents or other accounting data which support or tend to support your denial of the particular Request for Admission in each case.

    Golden responded that it had no information on which to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP