Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Burnett v. . Texas Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided March 29, 1933PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partConnor, J.
The defendant owned a filling station near Chadbourn, and on or about 12 December, 1930, entered into a written agreement with the plaintiff by the terms of which the plaintiff was to operate the filling station. The written instrument stipulates:
1. "The company leases to the dealer for installation and use . . . three Wayne Motor Pumps; three 550 U. G. tanks; one metal day sign complete, one certified service sign, one gold motor oil sidewalk sign; four M-15 lube oil units. Said equipment is leased at dealer's request to be used by him on said premises for storage and sale of petroleum…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Saunders System Birmingham Co. v. AdamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Johnson v. H. M. Bullard Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
- Singleton v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Rushing v. . Texas CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hall v. SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Jankele v. Texas Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1936
- Cobb v. Gulf Refining Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1940
- The PegeenDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1936
- Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. HeldtCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1951