Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Phillips Petroleum Company v. Polycarp L. Broussard

265 F.2d 221

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1959-04-15
Topic: litigation

PER CURIAM. Appellee Broussard, as plaintiff below, brought this action in a state court for the cancellation of an oil, gas and mineral lease as to part of the land covered thereby (29.526 acres). Appellants, Phillips Petroleum Company and others, defendants below, removed the case to the United States District Court which granted appellee’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings. Appellants attack this judgment on four grounds, which are the identical grounds upon which they relied in the lower court. The judge in the trial below, reciting that “both sides candidly concede that there is no factual dispute,” wrote a careful and exhaustive opinion 1 dealing with each of the legal propositions relied upon on this appeal.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Phillips Petroleum Company v. Polycarp L. Broussard. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 4 opinions

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY v. BROUSSARD,265 F.2d 221(5th Cir. 1959)

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. Polycarp L. BROUSSARD,

Appellee.

No. 17390.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 15, 1959.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; Edwin F. Hunter, Jr., Judge.

Charles F. Bailey, Lafayette, La., Martin J. Weil, Los Angeles, Cal., James N. Erwin, Jr., Houston, Tex., Bailey Mouton, Lafayette, La., for appellants.

J.E. Kibbe, Abbeville, La., James J. Davidson, Jr., Lawrence E. Donohoe, Jr., and Davidson, Meaux, Onebane Donohoe, Lafayette, La., for appellee.

Before RIVES, TUTTLE and CAMERON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Broussard, as plaintiff below, brought this action in a state court for the cancellation of an oil, gas and mineral lease as to part of the land covered thereby (29.526 acres). Appellants, Phillips Petroleum Company and others, defendants below, removed the case to the United States District Court which granted appellee's motion for a judgment on the pleadings. Appellants attack this judgment on four grounds, which are the identical grounds upon which they relied in the lower court.

The judge in the trial below, reciting that "both sides candidly concede that there is no factual dispute," wrote a careful and exhaustive opinion¹dealing with each of the legal propositions relied upon on this appeal. A reading of the record and briefs convinces us that the case was fully presented by the pleadings, that the language of the crucial "Pugh Clause" (160 F. Supp. 907) is clear and unambiguous, that the case was correctly decided and that the opinion of the trial judge accurately and adequately deals with all of the points relied upon here. For the reasons and upon the considerations set out in said opinion (and cf. Mattison v. Trotti, 5 Cir., 1959,262 F.2d 339) the judgment is

Affirmed.Page 236

Broussard v. Phillips Petroleum Co., D.C. 1958,160 F. Supp. 905. ↩