Shell Oil Co. v. Blumberg, 11452.
Decision Date | 22 March 1946 |
Docket Number | No. 11452.,11452. |
Citation | 154 F.2d 251 |
Parties | SHELL OIL CO., Inc., v. BLUMBERG et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Forney Johnston, of Birmingham, Ala., and Philip M. Payne, of New York City, for appellant.
O. S. Lewis, of Dothan, Ala., Thos. B. Hill, Jr., of Montgomery, Ala., and C. R. Shannon, of Mobile, Ala., for appellees.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
This is an action (1) for a declaratory judgment construing a leasing agreement that included an option to purchase the realty leased, (2) for specific performance of the contract, and (3) to set aside a sale of the property leased. The questions raised on appeal require an interpretation of the following provisions in said lease contract:
Upon taking possession of the leased premises, appellant erected a gasoline filling station thereon. On July 16, 1940, the appellee, Blumberg & Sons, submitted two separate and distinct written offers to a representative of the Bishop of Mobile, one to purchase the above realty for the sum of $20,000 cash; the other to purchase a lot on which was located a church building owned by the Bishop adjacent to and north of said leased premises, fronting 44 feet on North Oates Street, for the sum of $5,000 cash. In compliance with the terms of said lease contract, on August 7, 1940, the Bishop executed and mailed to appellant a notice of said offer on the leased premises, giving the name and address of the prospective purchaser, accompanied by an affidavit of good faith and his intention to sell, all in accordance with the provisions of the lease contract. By letter dated August 15, 1940, appellant advised the Bishop that it elected not to accept his offer to sell the leased premises, but stated that its rejection of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Doerr
...97 F.Supp. 454 (D.Idaho 1951); Sinclair Refining Co. v. Martin, 38 Tenn.App. 66, 270 S.W.2d 576 (Ct.App.1954); Shell Oil Co. v. Blumberg, 154 F.2d 251 (5 Cir. 1946); Texaco, Inc. v. Rogow, 150 Conn. 401, 190 A.2d 48 None of the above cases is a persuasive precedent here. All are distinguish......
-
Shepherd v. Davis
...the lessee refuses to exercise a right of first refusal after being presented with a third-party offer. See e.g. Shell Oil Co. v. Blumberg, 154 F.2d 251, 252-53 (5th Cir.1946); Northwest Racing Ass'n v. Hunt, 20 Ill. App.2d 393, 156 N.E.2d 285, 288 (1959); Tarrant v. Self, 180 Ind.App. 215,......
-
Castrucci v. Young, 85-CV-0854
...... Shell Oil Co. v. Prescott (C.A.6, 1968), 398 F.2d 592, certiorari denied (1969), 393 U.S. 1017, 89 S.Ct. ... There are cases supporting such a position. See Shell Oil Co. v. Blumberg (C.A.5, 1946), 154 F.2d 251; Texaco, Inc. v. Rogow (1963), 150 Conn. 401, 190 A.2d 48; Amoco Oil ......
-
McDonald's Corp. v. Lebow Realty Trust
...a right of first refusal and not otherwise defined, contemplates such a situation). This is also the teaching of Shell Oil Co. v. Blumberg, 154 F.2d 251, 252-53 (5th Cir.1946) and Shell Oil Co. v. Jolley, 130 Vt. 482, 296 A.2d 236, 241 (1972). In Blumberg, Shell refused to exercise its righ......