Norville v. Globe Oil & Refining Co.
| Decision Date | 29 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 13622.,13622. |
| Citation | 303 F.2d 281 |
| Parties | Alex NORVILLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The GLOBE OIL & REFINING CO., an Illinois corporation, and Dan Terzaikis, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Alphonse Cerza, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
J. Edgar Daniels, John J. O'Shaughnessy, John R. Fielding, Seibert & Daniels, Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
Before SCHNACKENBERG, KNOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
Alex Norville, plaintiff, appeals from a judgment order of the district court denying his motion for summary judgment, granting the motion of defendant Dan Terzaikis for summary judgment, and entering a judgment for him and The Globe Oil & Refining Co., an Illinois corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Globe".
Plaintiff's action was for treble damages and attorneys' fees for an alleged violation by defendants of § 2(c) and § 4 of the Clayton Act, § 2 having been amended by the Robinson-Patman Act. 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 13(c), 15.
The motions for summary judgment were considered on plaintiff's complaint, the answers of the defendants, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, plaintiff's deposition, and documentary exhibits, from an examination of which the following salient facts appear:
Plaintiff became the owner of a gasoline filling station in Chicago, Illinois, by purchase from defendant Terzaikis (hereinafter referred to as "defendant"), who had constructed the buildings and equipment used therein.
Prior thereto there existed a contract between defendant and Shell Oil Company for the latter's installation of pumps and tanks on said premises, which obligated defendant to buy Shell products. In this situation, defendant leased the station to plaintiff, subject to the obligation of defendant to Shell, the lease providing that plaintiff "shall purchase all gasoline to be sold upon the premises described herein, from the Shell Oil Company or from any other company that" defendant so indicated.
Because of financial assistance which defendant had received from Globe, the latter acquired a mortgage on the premises, which obligated defendant to purchase from Globe all of his requirements for gas and oil on said premises. So, after the parties had been operating under the lease for about six months, defendant directed plaintiff to switch his purchases to Globe, whereupon plaintiff ordered his gas and other products from Globe by telephoning to a man connected with a trucking firm delivering gas for defendant. Defendant arranged for the trucking company to pick up the gas and deliver it to plaintiff as required and paid the haulers for their services. When plaintiff needed gas and oil he ordered directly through defendant or by calling the latter's truckers.
At first, defendant billed plaintiff for gas and oil delivered and instructed him to make his check in payment to Globe, which was delivered to Globe and credited to defendant's account. The bills as rendered by defendant for gas showed a price fixed by defendant which was more than defendant had to pay Globe. Globe credited the surplus in payment to defendant's account with Globe. Later, by arrangement with defendant, plaintiff, upon delivery, made payment by his checks payable to Globe and delivered them to defendant's haulers for delivery to Globe.
Plaintiff never dealt with or contacted Globe and never ordered gasoline or oil from it. Globe never billed plaintiff, with which it never had any business dealings.
Various contentions by plaintiff require mention at this point. He argues that the contract between Globe and defendant is ambiguous. His counsel characterizes him as "a trusting fellow just following directions as required in the lease and who paid no attention to details."
While he admits that he never directly ordered his products from Globe, his counsel asserts that "he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Summey v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
...an alleged business tort based on fraudulent misrepresentations was not a proper Sherman Act case. Likewise, in Norville v. Globe Oil & Refining Co., 303 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1962), the Seventh Circuit held that although defendants may have acted in concert and their action may have affected ......
-
Woods Exploration & Prod. Co. v. Aluminum Co. of Amer., Civ. A. No. 14669.
...only violations of state law and what is primarily a matter of state concern into a federal antitrust violation. Norville v. Globe Oil & Ref. Co., 303 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1962); see Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717(c) (1963). See also note 7 THE LITIGATION The remaining allegations of plaint......
-
Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
...(1966); cf. United States v. Boston & Maine R.R., 380 U.S. 157, 162, 85 S.Ct. 868, 13 L.Ed.2d 728 (1965); Norville v. Globe Oil & Refining Co., 303 F.2d 281, 282-83 (7th Cir. 1962). As the district court stated in Sterling "The evidence here proves only bribery of an influential state emplo......
-
Hill v. A-T-O, Inc.
...Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469, 512-13, 60 S.Ct. 982, 1002, 84 L.Ed. 1311, 1333-34 (1940); Norville v. Globe Oil & Refining Co., 303 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1962). GURFEIN, Circuit Judge I do not believe that this is really a tie-in antitrust case. Since it is on an appeal from the gra......