Seaboard Terminal Corporation v. Standard Oil Co., 253.

• Decision Date: 12 June 1939
• Docket Number: No. 253.,253.
• Citation: 104 F.2d 659
• Parties: SEABOARD TERMINALS CORPORATION et al. v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

104 F.2d 659 (1939)

SEABOARD TERMINALS CORPORATION et al. v.STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY et al.

No. 253.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 12, 1939.

O'Connor & Farber, of New York City(Henry K. Urion and Stephen V. Ryan, Jr., both of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Gardiner & Reed, of New York City(John W. Davis, Edwin F. Blair, Luke W. Finlay, and D. Nelson Adams, all of New York City, of counsel), for Standard Oil Co.

Kellogg, Emery & Inness-Brown, of New York City(David Paine and Harold Kronig, both of New York City, of counsel), for American Oil Co.

Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We adopt as our own Judge Patterson's opinion, D.C., 24 F.Supp. 1018, so far as it disposes of the action against the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey and the American Oil Company.We do not commit ourselves, however, as to the proposition that on a motion for summary judgment affidavits going beyond the complaint can under no circumstances be considered.The judgment finally disposes of the action, and if facts appear in affidavits which would justify an amended complaint, there may be ground for treating the complaint as though it were already amended to conform.The affidavits in the case at bar did not, however, add anything which changed the result.They showed (1) that the Midland's principal place of business was New York until September 1, 1931; (2) that most of its customers were outside Maryland; (3) that it had tanks and other apparatus in Pennsylvania and Virginia as well as in Maryland; and (4) that it bought its gasoline outside Maryland.Little of this is relevant, for the complaint specifies the damages suffered as...