Home/Louisiana Court of Appeal/Exxon Corp. v. Barry

Exxon Corp. v. Barry

384 So. 2d 826, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 3834
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 13, 1980
DocketNo. 11056
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 384 So. 2d 826 (Exxon Corp. v. Barry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Exxon Corp. v. Barry, 384 So. 2d 826, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 3834 (La. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

BOUTALL, Judge.

Exxon Corporation filed suit against Denis A. Barry and other owners of a seven acre tract of ground seeking specific performance of an agreement to establish a servitude upon a portion of the tract mea[827]*827suring 30 feet by 6 feet for the purpose of erecting and maintaining a modular sign. The defendants reconvened for a declaratory judgment decreeing that the agreement is unenforceable as a matter of Louisiana law. Nearly all of the evidence was stipulated and the trial court rendered two judgments in favor of defendants, one dismissing plaintiff’s suit and one maintaining defendants reconventional demand declaring that the agreement is unenforceable. From these judgments Exxon Corporation has appealed.

The issues in this case revolve around an agreement between Humble Oil & Refining Company (Exxon’s predecessor) and HSL Corporation, (the defendants’ predecessor in title) dated March 29, 1968. The heart of that agreement reads as follows:

“1. Upon written request from Grantee, Grantor will execute an appropriate instrument granting a servitude measuring 30 feet in length by 6 feet in width upon the southwesterly corner of Lot l-A-3, together with ingress and egress thereto. Said servitude being for the purpose of erecting and maintaining modular signs upon the said servitude area.”

The agreement referred to prior agreements between the parties in which HSL Corporation had agreed to sell Humble two parcels of ground and in which the seller agreed to execute a servitude agreement for each parcel the pertinent one being a “servitude measuring 30 feet in length by 6 feet in width upon the southwesterly portion of Parcel 2-A * * * to be located at a precise point mutually agreed to by the parties hereto.” Although there is some issue raised as to the change in apparent location from southwesterly portion to southwesterly corner and a change in lot designation, we see no need to consider these matters because the present owners assumed the obligations expressed in the later agreement of March 29,1968, and it is the terms of that agreement which are controlling of the issues here.

Some time after the March 29, 1968 agreement, HSL Corporation sold the tract in question to others, and eventually ownership passed into the hands of the present owners, all of whom took title subject to that agreement. Exxon eventually made demand upon these owners requesting that they execute a grant of servitude in accordance with a Survey of Sign Sight Servitude dated March 16, 1978 made by John D. Luecke, Surveyor. That proposed servitude was located in the southeasterly corner of the property. At trial it was conceded that plaintiff was aware that the proposed servitude was located in the southeasterly corner and not the southwesterly corner, but it was explained that this proposal was made because it was conceived that that location would be less objectionable to defendants, and that it was immediately adjacent to a New Orleans Public Service servitude from which electricity could be drawn to service the sign, without further disturbing the defendants’ plans for development. Plaintiff does not contend for the establishment of the servitude in that location, but contends for specific performance by location of the servitude in the southwesterly corner. In order to understand the problems confronting the parties, we reproduce a copy of the survey which shows the tract of ground to be quite irregular along its southerly and westerly lines because it runs along the perimeter of the right of way of the interchange of Highway I — 10 and Bullard Road. A simple examination of the tract survey shows a series of lines along the southerly and, westerly sides of the property, forming a series of intersections which could be considered to be corners.

[See following illustration.]

[828]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Whitehouse Hotel Limited Partnership, QHR Holdings-New Orleans, Ltd., Tax Matters Partner v. Commissioner
131 T.C. No. 10 (U.S. Tax Court, 2008)
Whitehouse Hotel L.P. v. Comm'r
131 T.C. No. 10 (U.S. Tax Court, 2008)
Hailey v. Panno
472 So. 2d 97 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1985)
Membreno v. Ponder
417 So. 2d 1257 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
384 So. 2d 826, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 3834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/exxon-corp-v-barry-lactapp-1980.