Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Waters
| Decision Date | 06 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 10062,10062 |
| Citation | 159 So.2d 408 |
| Parties | HUMBEL OIL & REFINING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Miss H. M. WATERS, a.k.a. Hattie Mae Waters, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Coen & Pliner, Shreveport, for appellant.
Robert W. Coyle, Shreveport, for appellee.
Before HARDY, GLADNEY, and AYRES, JJ.
This is an action upon an open account in the sum of $2,896.48 for merchandise allegedly sold and delivered to defendant or for her account, on a credit card issued to her by plaintiff's predecessor, Esso Standard Oil Company. The merchandise consisted primarily of motor oils, gasoline, tires, and tubes. Of the amount claimed, defendant admitted owing $276.76, but she denied owing the balance of the account for the reason that she neither purchased nor authorized the purchase of the merchandise represented thereby. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for the amount admittedly due, plaintiff appealed.
The questions involved on this appeal are primarily factual in character. A brief review of the facts appears appropriate for an understanding of the issues presented for determination. Beginning with April 8, 1955, plaintiff's predecessor, Esso Standard Oil Company, issued to defendant credit cards annually, each expiring on December 31st of the year for which it was issued. This practice continued through December 31, 1960. The cards were renewed at the end of each year and forwarded to those whose accounts were satisfactory without the necessity of a request therefor. Through the use of these cards, defendant procured credit from retail dealers handling Esso products. The accounts thus made up of credit sales were transferred and assigned to plaintiff or its predecessor.
During the fall of 1959, defendant permitted one Don Claud Romby, a roomer at her residence, to use her credit card in making certain purchases. On the presentation of defendant's credit card, Romby signed defendant's name to the purchase order acknowledging delivery of the merchandise. On receipt of a renewal card for 1960, defendant refused to deliver this card to Romby or to authorize him to make purchases on her account.
Pursuant to a telephone call by someone to B. J. Campbell, Jr., of the Credit Department of plaintiff's predecessor, giving notice that the renewal card supposedly issued to defendant had not been received, a second card was requested which was accordingly issued and mailed to her at her street address in Shreveport. Defendant had no notice or knowledge of the aforesaid call or of the issuance of the second card. She never received it. Obviously, it was extracted from her mailbox. Neither did she receive statements for the months of November and December, 1959, or for January, February, and March, 1960. However, during the last of April or first of May, 1960, she received a statement for an amount exceeding $2,000.00. Obviously, Romby had extracted these statements from defendant's mailbox in order to conceal his purchases on defendant's account.
On a second occasion, a call was made to the Credit Department of plaintiff's predecessor in which the predecessor was informed that the account would soon be made current. Its delinquency was attempted to be accounted for by statement to the effect that rains had prevented the use of heavy machinery from bringing timber out of the woods.
Plaintiff's representative, on receiving the aforesaid calls, did not recognize defendant as the one calling. On the contrary, the voice appeared not to be that of a woman. Defendant was a woman schoolteacher and not a logger, a fact known by plaintiff's precedessor's representative, as well as shown by its records.
From the facts and circumstances shown to have existed, it can only be concluded that Romby made the calls and that he received and used the additional card issued in defendan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michigan Nat. Bank v. Olson
...that duty was breached when the Bank approved the $52,500 charge is also an issue of material fact. See Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Waters, 159 So.2d 408, 410 (La.App.2d Cir.1963); see also Roth v. Kay, 35 Wash.App. 1, 4, 664 P.2d 1299, review denied, 100 Wash.2d 1026 (1983); Sado v. Spoka......
-
Lechmere Tire & Sales Co. v. Burwick
...the burden of proving that reasonable inquiry as to identity has been made on the person extending credit). See Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Waters, 159 So.2d 408, 410 (Ct. of App.La.); note, 77 Yale L.J. 1418, 1419--1423; note, 43 N.C.L.Rev. 416; annotation, 15 A.L.R.3d We conclude that the pr......
-
Avant v. SUBMERSIBLE RIG PETER DUNCAN# 6
...to the injury must stand the loss. Baton Rouge Lumber Company v. Gurney, 173 So.2d 251 (La. App.1965); Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Waters, 159 So.2d 408 (La. App.1963); Trumbull Chevrolet Sales Company v. Maxwell, 142 So.2d 805 In the Baton Rouge Lumber Company case, the court clearly ......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
...occasioned should bear it. McKenzie & Mouk, Inc. v. Ouachita National Bank, La .App. 2 Cir., 159 So.2d 304; Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Waters, La.App. 2 Cir., 159 So.2d 408; DeSoto Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Pace, La.App. 2 Cir., 34 So.2d Issuance of the certificate of insurance address......
-
Credit Cards, Credit Reports and Fraud: Enforcing Consumer Rights
...A.2d 195 (D.C.App. 1991); First National City Bank v. Mullarkey, 385 N.Y.S.2d 473 (N.Y.Cir.Ct. 1976); Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Waters, 159 So.2d 408 (La.App. 1963). 5. See, e.g., TransAmerica Insurance, supra, note 4; Beard, supra, note 4. 6. American Airlines, Inc. v. Remis Industries, Inc......