Nabors Oil Corporation, Inc. v. Samuels

• Decision Date: 20 June 1932
• Docket Number: 31156
• Citation: 143 So. 330,175 La. 371
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: NABORS OIL CORPORATION, Inc., et al. v. SAMUELS

143 So. 330

175 La. 371

NABORS OIL CORPORATION, Inc., et al. v. SAMUELS

No. 31156

Supreme Court of Louisiana

June 20, 1932

Rehearing Denied July 20, 1932

Parsons & Colvin, of Mansfield, for appellants.

Craig Bolin & Magee, of Manfield, for appellee.

OPINION

OVERTON, J.

This is a suit for damages in the sum of $ 10,352.50. The cause of action rests upon an alleged breach of a contract by defendant to purchase from plaintiffs all of the gasoline and lubricating oil to be dispensed by him from certain premises during a period of ten years, beginning January 1, 1920.

The essential part of the contract, so far as the contract is involved in this case, reads as follows:

W. C. Nabors (who later became the assignor of the Nabors Oil Corporation, Inc., and who is the other plaintiff) agrees to sell and deliver to H. H. Samuels all of the automobile lubricating oils and gasoline purchased by H. H Samuels, and said Samuels agrees to purchase all of the automobile lubricating oils and gasoline sold by him or his associates for the period of ten years covered by a certain lease on property to be used for a filling station, said lease executed by B. Y. Wemple to H. H. Samuels.

'The price agreed upon for gasoline is three cents per gallon less than the retail (not wholesale tank wagon price) of gasoline in this territory made by the Standard Oil Co. of La., generally known as the retail filling station price. The price of automobile lubricating oils are to be fair competitive prices, quality and service both considered.'

In another part of the contract, unnecessary to give in detail, the right of either party to terminate the contract, on complying with certain conditions, was recognized. The price at which the gasoline was to be sold was one cent a gallon lower than the usual cost to retailers, and, as a further consideration, the coplaintiff, Nabors, paid to defendant the sum of $ 3,000, when the contract was signed.

Defendant urges the inferiority of the lubricating oil and gasoline delivered to him by Nabors as his defense, and in addition thereto, he urges, so far as relates to the contract for the lubricating oil, the defense that, about November 1, 1923, Nabors released him from all obligations to purchase oil from him thereunder, he (defendant) to continue to purchase gasoline from him exclusively under the contract. Defendant also has a reconventional demand, based on the loss of profits, due to the inferior quality of oil and gasoline delivered to him. There had been exceptions in the case, but they were disposed of, on appeal, by this court in the case of Nabors Oil Corporation v. Samuels, 170 La. 57, 127 So. 363, where the exceptions were overruled and the case remanded.

Following the remand of the case, after a rather lengthy trial, in which considerable oral evidence was introduced, the lower court rendered judgment rejecting plaintiffs' demand, and defendant's reconventional demand, plaintiffs to pay the costs of the main demand and defendant of the reconventional demand.

The contract, it may be said, as also the suit, is divisible into two parts -- one part involving the contract touching the sale and purchase of oil and the other touching the sale and purchase of gasoline. Defendant's contention that he was released from the contract, so far as it relates to oil, by the coplaintiff, Nabors, we think, is supported by the weight of the evidence. Defendant testified that, while protesting to Nabors as to the inferior quality of the oil that was being delivered, the inferiority being due largely to the presence of water, which, because of the condition of Nabors' oil tank, had gotten into the oil, and while bringing to his attention the complaints that his customers were making concerning the oil, and while questioning Nabors concerning the cancellation of that part of the contract Nabors released him from the part relating to the purchase of oil, saying that he could purchase oil where he wished, but that he (Nabors) expected him to continue to...