Vincent v. Superior Oil Company, 7155.

• Decision Date: 05 November 1959
• Docket Number: No. 7155.,7155.
• Citation: 178 F. Supp. 276
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
• Parties: Durphy VINCENT, Mrs. Allie Murphy, Jules Vincent, John Whitney Vincent, Jr.; Mona Rae Vincent, Allora Jean Vincent and Rondell Vincent, Minors Through Tutrix Mrs. Rita Vincent; Judy Ann Vincent, Minor Through Tutor John Voras Nunez; and Morris Vincent v. SUPERIOR OIL COMPANY, Fifteen Oil Company, and Humble Oil & Refining Company.

178 F. Supp. 276

Durphy VINCENT, Mrs. Allie Murphy, Jules Vincent, John Whitney Vincent, Jr.; Mona Rae Vincent, Allora Jean Vincent and Rondell Vincent, Minors Through Tutrix Mrs. Rita Vincent; Judy Ann Vincent, Minor Through Tutor John Voras Nunez; and Morris Vincent v. SUPERIOR OIL COMPANY, Fifteen Oil Company, and Humble Oil & Refining Company.

No. 7155.

United States District Court W. D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division.

November 5, 1959.

J. B. Jones, Jr., Cameron, La., for plaintiffs.

Bernard J. Caillouet, New Orleans, La., Oliver P. Stockwell, Lake Charles, La., for defendants.

HUNTER, District Judge.

Federal jurisdiction is based on diversity. Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of Louisiana. Defendants are corporations organized under the laws of states other than Louisiana. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $10,000.

Louisiana Law Controls

Under the doctrine of Erie, the laws of Louisiana (statutes and decisions) provide the rules of decision. Therefore, the laws of Louisiana are to be ascertained and applied to the specific facts.

Statement of the Case

In chronological sequence, certain undisputed facts pertinent and material to the questions before the Court are¹:

(1) On June 9, 1904, Emile Vincent married Zalan Vincent.

(2) They established the family home on Little Chenier Island, a then remote section of Cameron Parish, Louisiana.

(3) Born to the marriage were six children. The last child, Maurice Vincent, was born February 9, 1918.

(4) Sometime in 1920 Mr. and Mrs. Vincent separated, and they did not maintain the same household from that time until June 27, 1957, the date of Zalan's death.

(5) On December 19, 1925, Emile Vincent, who was then living in Jefferson County, Texas, filed a suit there for divorce from Zalan Vincent. The divorce was never obtained; it was dismissed by the Court on January 18, 1936 for want of prosecution.

(6) The subject property was acquired by Zalan Vincent from her father on January 12, 1927, by deed in which the marital status of Zalan Vincent was stated as follows:

"Mrs. Zalan Vincent (born Benoit), widow of Emile Vincent, divorced by a judgment of court in the County of Jefferson, State of Texas."

(7) The consideration stated for the transfer to Zalan from her father was $500, with no down payment, and the balance represented by ten notes, payable $50 per year.

(8) In 1937 when Humble Oil was doing title curative work, Mr. Allison T. Miller, an employee of Humble, picked up the notes securing the purchase price of the property at the home of Mrs. Zalan Vincent, and took them to Cameron where they were canceled of record on December 10, 1937.

(9) From the date of the deed until these notes were canceled, Mrs. Zalan Vincent made the following leases and sales of the subject property.

(a) Oil and gas lease from Mrs. Zalan Vincent to The Texas Company, dated June 25, 1928, in which she received a consideration of $16.62 (D-26). Marital status stated as follows: "Zellen Vincent, born Benoit, separate property, formerly wife of Emile Vincent from whom she is separated and living apart."

(b) Oil and gas lease from Mrs. Zalan Vincent to John B. Daigle, dated July 25, 1936, introduced as D-27, in which she received the sum of $66.00. Marital status stated as follows: "Zalan Vincent, born Benoit, divorced wife of Emile Vincent."

(c) Royalty deed from Zalan Vincent to John B. Daigle, dated July 20, 1936, in which she received $132.00 (D-12). Marital status stated as follows: "Mrs. Zallan Vincent, born Benoit, divorced wife of Emile Vincent."

(d) Royalty deed from Zalan Vincent to Drozan Miller, dated October 24, 1936, in which she received $247.50. (D-9). Marital status stated as follows: "Mrs. Zallan Vincent, born Benoit, divorced wife of Emile Vincent."

(e) Royalty deed from Mrs. Zalan Vincent, born Benoit, to Joe E. Bass, Jr., dated April 16, 1937, in which she received $330.00 (D-11). Marital status stated as follows: "Mrs. Zalan Vincent, born Benoit, divorced wife of Emile Vincent."

(10) The lease under attack was granted by Mrs. Zalan Vincent to Superior on October 28, 1953 for a primary term of five years. The delay rentals were paid each year, and on June 21, 1958 a unit declaration was executed and filed for record on June 23, 1958, in accordance with the terms of said lease, pooling the lease with other leases owned by the Fifteen Oil Company and Humble Oil Company, to form a 160-acre unit. Humble, as the operator of the unit, commenced operations for the drilling of a well on June 18, 1958.

(11) The form lease executed by Mrs. Zalan Vincent to Superior set forth Mrs. Vincent's marital status as follows:

"Mrs. Zalan Vincent, married one time only, then to Emile Vincent, from whom she was divorced by judgment of the Court in Jefferson County, Texas, prior to acquiring the land herein leased."

(12) On July 17, 1958, Emile Vincent signed a disclaimer to any interest in the subject property. This disclaimer is a notarized affidavit by Emile Vincent which contains in pertinent part the following statements:

"Mrs. Zalan Vincent and her husband, Emile Vincent, have not lived together since about 1920;

"Now, I, Emile Vincent, former husband of Mrs. Zalan Vincent, now deceased, do hereby declare that the property hereinafter described was the separate and paraphernal property of Mrs. Zalan Vincent, having been acquired by her after she and appearer started living apart and was paid for with her separate funds and that he does hereby disclaim any rights, titles, and interest in and to said property."

(13) The well was spudded in on July 26, 1958, and completed as a producer on August 22, 1958.

(14) This suit was filed in State Court on August 20, 1958, and removed here on September 20, 1958.

(15) Zalan Vincent died in Hurricane Audrey in 1957, and her heirs and former husband, Emile Vincent, seek cancellation of the lease granted by Zalan Vincent on the proposition that the property covered by the lease was purchased during the existence of the marriage between Zalan Vincent and Emile Vincent, and therefore was community property, and that only Emile Vincent had the authority to grant a lease covering the property. Plaintiffs urge that the property is owned one-half by the heirs of Zalan and the other one-half by Emile Vincent, free of the lease and unitization agreement.

The Pleadings

The motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, as to the heirs of Zalan Vincent, was predicated on the proposition that the filing of this suit by the heirs of Zalan Vincent constituted an acceptance of her succession and bound the heirs by her warranty. The Court at the time was of the opinion that the legal principle asserted by defendants as to the claims of the heirs of Zalan Vincent was correct, but because the case had to be tried as to the other plaintiff, denied the motions and permitted the entire case to be tried on its merits.

The motion for summary judgment as to Emile Vincent was based on the fact that Emile had executed a declaration on July 17, 1958, disclaiming any interest in the property and conceding that it was the separate and paraphernal property of Zalan. This motion was denied.

Defendants filed their answer, in which they admitted the execution of the deed, the lease and the unit agreement, and re-urged their special defenses in that the heirs of Zalan Vincent, in accepting her succession, were bound by her warranty, and that Emile Vincent was foreclosed in his claim by the declaration which he executed. In the alternative, defendants set out that subject property was the separate and paraphernal property of Zalan Vincent.

Further, in the alternative, defendants set up a special plea of estoppel as to both Emile Vincent and the heirs of Zalan Vincent; and in the further alternatives, defendants filed a cross claim against those plaintiffs who were the heirs of Zalan Vincent on the premise that they had accepted her succession and became bound by the warranty in the oil, gas and mineral lease, and were obligated to maintain defendants in the undisturbed possession of the property.

Our approach to a resolution of the case is to first consider the special defenses:

The Heirs of Mrs. Zalan Vincent

Mrs. Zalan Vincent granted the lease to Superior on October 28, 1953. In the lease which was properly authenticated she stated her name and marital status to be:

"Mrs. Zalan Vincent, married one time only, then to Emile Vincent, from whom she was divorced by judgment of the court in Jefferson County, Texas, prior to acquiring the land herein leased."

Plaintiffs do not allege, nor is there any evidence, that the lease granted by Zalan was secured by fraud. Mr. Toler had been leasing land in Cameron Parish for several years; he made a deal with Zalan for the lease, and she came to Cameron with her daughter, Mrs. Allie Murphy, and went to Mr. Herbert's office to sign the lease which she had agreed on. Zalan had experience in granting oil, gas and mineral leases, for she had already granted four leases on this property starting in 1928, and had made four royalty sales affecting the same property.

When the heirs of Zalan Vincent instituted this suit, they accepted her succession and became bound by her warranty. Cook v. Martin, 188 La. 1063, 178 So. 881. The precise issue here involved was considered by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in Cochran v. Gulf Refining Company, 1916, 139 La. 1010, 72 So. 718, 721. There, the suit involved a demand for the cancellation of an oil and gas lease. In maintaining the lease, the Supreme Court of Louisiana said:

This doctrine in the civil law is expressed in the maxim: `Quem de evictione tenet actio, eundum agentem repellit exceptio.' By their acceptance of the succession of their mother, unconditionally and without the benefit of inventory, the plaintiffs assumed her obligations with regard to the land which they received and partitioned among themselves and

...