Lindner v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp.

Decision Date24 November 1952
Docket NumberMID-CONTINENT,No. 4-9914,4-9914
Citation252 S.W.2d 631,221 Ark. 241
PartiesLINDNER et al. v.PETROLEUM CORP.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Vol T. Lindsey, Bentonville, for appellants.

Eugene Coffelt, Bentonville, R. H. Wills and Ben Hatcher, Tulsa, Okl., for appellee.

GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice.

This is an action by Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation to recover possession of a filling station owned by Cora Lee Lindner and leased by her to Mid-Continent. The theory of the complaint is that Mrs. Lindner wrongfully attempted to cancel the lease and thereafter unjustifiably withheld possession from the plaintiff. There was also involved certain equipment appurtenant to the filling station, but the arguments advanced on appeal present no issue with respect to this equipment. The defenses below were that Mrs. Lindner's lease to Mid-Continent was void for lack of mutuality and that the lessee was in default in the payment of rent. Trial before a jury resulted in a verdict awarding possession to the plaintiff.

The jury may have concluded from the proof that on March 19, 1949, Mid-Continent wished to rent the station as an outlet for the sale of its petroleum products, Mrs. Lindner desired to lease the property to Mid-Continent, and Mrs. Lindner's husband, the other appellant, wanted to undertake the operation of the station. In furtherance of these ends the parties executed four instruments on the date mentioned. First, Mrs. Lindner, for a rental of one cent for each gallon of motor fuel sold on the premises, leased the filling station to Mid-Continent for a term of three years with an option by which the lessee might extend the lease for two more years. In this lease the lessee reserved the privilege of termination at any time upon ten days' notice to the lessor. Second, Mid-Continent in turn rented the property to Paul Lindner upon a month-to-month basis at the same rental, both parties retaining the privilege of termination upon ten days' notice. Third, the Lindners authorized Mid-Continent to offset the rents against each other, so that Mid-Continent would not be required to collect the rent monthly from Lindner and pay over an identical amount to Mrs. Lindner. Fourth Mid-Continent and Lindner agreed upon the price schedule at which the company would sell petroleum products to Lindner, this Contract also Being cancelable upon ten days' notice by either party.

These arrangements appear to have been satisfactory until the year 1951, when Lindner removed Mid-Continent's advertising from the service station and began buying gas and oil from a competing company. On July 23, 1951, Mid-Continent gave notice that it elected to terminate its lease to Paul Lindner and its agreement to sell petroleum products to him. Three days later the Lindners retaliated by attempting to cancel Mrs. Lindner's lease to Mid-Continent. When the latter demanded possession at the expiration of the ten-day notice by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Ryan's Family Steakhouse, Inc. v. Kilpatric
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • December 15, 2006
    ...of each party is legally sufficient consideration for the other's promise, there is no lack of mutuality, Lindner v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 221 Ark. 241, 252 S.W.2d 631 [(1952)]. ".... "... So long as there is a valuable consideration moving from one side to the other, or there are ......
  • Jorja Trading, Inc. v. Willis
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 9, 2020
    ...require a precisely even exchange of identical rights and obligations between the contracting parties. Lindner v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. , 221 Ark. 241, 252 S.W.2d 631 (1952) ; Johnson v. Johnson , 188 Ark. 992, 68 S.W.2d 465 (1934). "It is enough that the duty unconditionally undert......
  • Tinnon v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • October 11, 1960
    ...its concept and use of language of mutuality, Johnson v. Johnson, 188 Ark. 992, 994, 68 S.W.2d 465, 466; Lindner v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 221 Ark. 241, 243, 252 S.W.2d 631, 632; and see Crawford v. General Contract Corporation, supra, p. 297 of 174 F.Supp., we detect nothing in tho......
  • Marcrum v. Embry
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • August 30, 1973
    ...of each party is legally sufficient consideration for the other's promise, there is no lack of mutuality, Lindner v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 221 Ark. 241, 252 S.W.2d 631. The agreement here is a bilateral contract, since there are mutually dependent promises between the two parties t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT