Sinclair Refining Co. v. Miller
Decision Date | 19 September 1952 |
Docket Number | Civ. 103-51. |
Citation | 106 F. Supp. 881 |
Parties | SINCLAIR REFINING CO. v. MILLER et ux. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
David R. Warner, Dakota City, Neb., for plaintiff.
Mark J. Ryan, South Sioux City, Neb., for defendants.
This is an action for specific performance of an option contract for the purchase of certain real estate.Pursuant to Rule 56 (a),Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,28 U.S.C.A., the plaintiff has moved for a summary judgment in its favor.The pleadings and certain admissions of the defendants, deemed to be admissions by reason of defendants' failure to respond to plaintiff's request for admissions(FileNo. 8) within the time required, Rule 36(a),Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,28 U.S.C.A., disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any of the following material.
Facts.
The plaintiff, Sinclair Refining Company, hereinafter referred to as Sinclair, is now, and has been at all times material to this action, a corporation duly incorporated and existing under the laws of Maine.The defendants, Fred Miller and Elsie Miller, husband and wife, are now, and have been at all times material to this action, citizens of the state of Nebraska, residing at 218 West 17th Street, South Sioux City, Dakota County, Nebraska.
By a written agreement, admittedly genuine, dated February 14, 1936, defendants leased to plaintiff Sinclair the following described real estate:
"The West Sixty (W.60) feet of Lots One (1), Two (2), Three (3) and Four (4), Block Eight (8), Central Addition to the City of South Sioux City, Dakota County, Nebraska, having the approximate Dimensions of Sixty (60) by Eighty-six (86) feet",
together with certain improvements to be placed thereon by the defendants to fit the described premises for use as a gasoline filling station.The initial term of the lease was for a period of ten years to commence upon completion of the improvements.By a supplemental agreement between plaintiff and defendants, dated October 27, 1936, October 3, 1936, was fixed as the date for the beginning of the ten-year leasehold term.The lease provided for a monthly rental of $70 payable in advance.
By the terms of the lease the plaintiff was given the following extension option:
On July 5, 1946, plaintiff, in the manner provided in the lease, exercised its option to extend the leasehold period for five years from October 3, 1946, to October 3, 1951.
On January 31, 1951, the defendants gave the plaintiff another option, continuing for 60 days, to lease the premises which are the subject of this suit for a period of five years beginning October 3, 1951.This option expired unexercised and the rights given thereunder have been extinguished.
By Article XIV of the lease, dated February 14, 1936, the plaintiff was given the following purchase option:
In connection with the purchase option the lease sets forth the following conveyance requirements:
On August 17, 1951, plaintiff transmitted by registered mail the following notice to the defendants at their residence:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Doerr
...194 F.2d 532 (6 Cir. 1952); Texas Co. v. Crown Petroleum Corp., 137 Conn. 217, 75 A.2d 499 (Sup.Ct.Err.1950); Sinclair Refining Co. v. Miller, 106 F.Supp. 881 (D.Neb.1952); Glenn v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co., 34 Del.Ch. 198, 101 A.2d 339 (Ch. 1953); Sinclair Refining Co. v. Allbritton, ......
-
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. DeLoache, Civ. A. No. 67-722.
...on Contracts, vol. 5A, p. 372; Willard v. Tayloe (1869) 8 Wall. 557, 567, 75 U.S. 557, 567, 19 L.Ed. 501; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Miller (D. C.Neb.1952) 106 F.Supp. 881, 885. The defendants, however, relied on the following grounds enumerated in their proposed Findings of Fact herein, as j......
-
Fleming Companies, Inc. v. Thriftway Medford Lakes, Inc.
...of circumstances indicating fraud or bad faith. Id. (citing 49 Am.Jur., Specific Performance, § 49); see also Sinclair Refining Co. v. Miller, 106 F.Supp. 881, 885-886 (D.Neb.1952). This Court concludes that there is no unconscionability here. Even assuming that Fleming was in the superior ......
-
Gethsemane Lutheran Church v. Zacho, 37855
...v. Brown, 9 Minn. 157, Gil. 144; General American Life Ins. Co. v. Natchitoches Oil Mill, 5 Cir., 160 F.2d 140; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Miller, D.C.D.Neb., 106 F.Supp. 881; Hayes v. Disque, 401 Ill. 479, 82 N.E.2d 350; McKeever v. Washington Heights Realty Corp., 183 Md. 216, 37 A.2d 305; ......