EDWARDS v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF LOUISIANA

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 31959.

Attorney(S)

T.M. Milling, F.L. Hargrove, and A.M. Curtis, all of New Orleans, for relator. J.H. Inman, of Ponchatoula, for respondent.

Judges

ST. PAUL, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff A.M. Edwards, Jr. leased certain premises in Ponchatoula, Louisiana, to defendant Standard Oil Company of Louisiana on August 1, 1930, for use as a filling station. The lease term was two years with a renewal option for two additional years. Rent was set at one cent per gallon of gasoline or oil sold, payable monthly on the 15th day following the month of sale. Plaintiff alleged that the rent due on July 15, 1931, was not paid when due. Although defendant mailed a check for the rent amount on July 10, it did not reach plaintiff until July 21, at which time plaintiff returned the check. Plaintiff sought to have defendant vacate the premises for nonpayment of rent after proper notice. The district court entered judgment for plaintiff, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Defendant then applied for a writ of certiorari and review by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the defendant's tender of rent payment after the due date but prior to default and suit precludes the lessor from canceling the lease for nonpayment.
Whether the place of payment of rent, when unspecified in the lease, affects the lessor's right to cancel the lease for alleged nonpayment.
Whether the lessor may annul the lease when the lessee is able and willing to perform its payment obligations as soon as demanded.
The extent of judicial control over a lessor's right to dissolve a lease for late payment of rent.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Saxton v. Para Rubber Co., 166 La. 308, 117 So. 235	Where lease is silent on place of rent payment, payment must be made at leased premises or debtor's domicile; lessor must call for rent.	Used to establish that defendant's tender of rent after maturity but before default negated plaintiff's right to cancel lease.
Lafayette Realty Co. v. Joseph Puglia, 10 Orleans App. 105	Tender of rent after maturity but prior to default prevents lessor from canceling lease.	Supported the conclusion that defendant's tender stripped plaintiff of right to cancel lease.
Hemsing v. Wiener-Loeb Grocery Co., 157 La. 189, 102 So. 303	Contracts cannot be annulled by one party when the other is able and willing to perform upon demand.	Applied to reject plaintiff’s attempt to annul lease despite late payment tendered before suit.
Brewer v. Forest Gravel Co., 172 La. 828, 135 So. 372	Right to dissolve lease for failure to pay rent promptly is subject to judicial control based on circumstances.	Used to emphasize that lessor's right to cancel lease is not absolute and must be judicially controlled.
Sieward v. Denechaud, 120 La. 720, 45 So. 561	Supporting case cited regarding judicial control over lease dissolution.	Referenced as authority for Brewer v. Forest Gravel Co. principle.
Prude v. Morris, 38 La. Ann. 767, 769	Supporting case cited regarding judicial control over lease dissolution.	Referenced as authority for Brewer v. Forest Gravel Co. principle.
Schnaider v. Graffagnini, 154 La. 363, 97 So. 491	Supporting precedent related to lease cancellation and judicial oversight.	Used to support the court’s approach to lease dissolution rights.
Bonnabel v. Metairie Cypress Co., 129 La. 928, 57 So. 271	Supporting precedent related to lease cancellation and judicial oversight.	Used to support the court’s approach to lease dissolution rights.
Standard Brewing Co. v. Anderson, 121 La. 935, 46 So. 926, 15 Ann. Cas. 251	Supporting precedent related to lease cancellation and judicial oversight.	Used to support the court’s approach to lease dissolution rights.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the lease terms and relevant Louisiana Civil Code provisions. Article 2712 allows expulsion of a lessee for failure to pay rent when due, but this must be considered in light of the entire legal framework. Article 2157 requires payment at a specified place or, if unspecified, at the leased premises or debtor's domicile, implying the lessor must demand payment. Here, the lease did not specify a place for payment, and no demand for rent was alleged before the tender. Defendant mailed the rent check on July 10, which was delayed in delivery and received by plaintiff on July 21, who then returned it. The court held that defendant’s tender of rent after maturity but before default and suit effectively negated plaintiff's right to cancel the lease. Citing precedent, the court emphasized that contracts should not be annulled when the obligor is ready and willing to perform upon demand. Moreover, the right to dissolve a lease for late payment is subject to judicial control considering the circumstances, preventing automatic cancellation absent just cause.

Holding and Implications

The judgment of the district court and the Court of Appeal affirming it are reversed and set aside. The plaintiff's demand to have the defendant vacate the leased premises is rejected, and plaintiff is ordered to bear costs in all courts.

This decision directly affects the parties by denying plaintiff’s claim to cancel the lease based on the alleged nonpayment of rent. The court’s ruling underscores that a timely tender of rent before default and suit can preclude lease cancellation, and that judicial oversight limits a lessor’s right to dissolve a lease for late payment. No new precedent beyond the application of existing law was established.

Show full summary ...

EDWARDS v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF LOUISIANA. IN RE STANDARD OIL CO. OF LOUISIANA.

ST. PAUL, J.

Plaintiff alleges that on August 1, 1930, he leased to defendant, for a filling station, certain premises in Ponchatoula, La., for a period of two years, with privilege of renewal for two years more; the monthly rental being one cent per gallon of gasoline or oil sold from said premises, and being payable on the 15th day of the month following that in which the oil was sold; that the rent due July 15, 1931, was not paid when it became due; that plaintiff was "tendered a check for $35.19 [amount of said rent] on the 21st of the month"; that on the same day plaintiff returned said check; and that, "by reason of the non-payment of the rent when due," he is entitled (due notice having been given defendant) to have said defendant vacate the premises and deliver possession thereof to him.

The lease does not set forth where the rent is to be paid; and the petition does not allege, but on the contrary inferentially negatives that any demand for payment was ever made on defendant. And the fact is that a check for the amount of the rent was mailed by defendant to its agent at Ponchatoula on July 10th; but, owing to some oversight, or perhaps some fault in mail deliveries, it did not reach plaintiff until July 21st, as aforesaid.

The district court gave judgment for plaintiff as prayed for; and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. 141 So. 513.

II.

Article 2712, Rev. Civ. Code, declares that "The lessee may be expelled from the property if he fails to pay the rent when it becomes due."

But "Incivile est, nisi tota lege prospecta, una aliqua particula ejus proposita, judicare vel respondere," a laconic as old as the seven hills of Rome, which Corpus Juris correctly translates as meaning, "It is improper, unless the whole law has been examined, to give judgment or advice upon a view of a single clause of it."

And article 2157, Rev. Civ. Code, provides, that "The payment must be made in the place specified in the agreement. If the place be not thus specified, the payment, in case of a certain and determinate substance, must be made in the place where was, at the time of the agreement, the thing which is the object of it. These two cases excepted, the payment must be made at the dwelling of the debtor."

Hence, it is a rule that, "where the lease is silent as to where the rent shall be paid, the payment is to be made either at the leased premises or at the domicile of the debtor, and this presupposes, of course, that the lessor is to call for his rent." Saxton v. Para Rubber Co., 166 La. 308, 117 So. 235, 237. So that, "where * * * there is no specification in the lease as to the place where the rent should be paid, the law prescribes that `payment must be made at the dwelling of the debtor.' * * * R.C.C., 2157 [hence]. By formally tendering the rent after maturity, but prior to default and to the filing of this action, the defendant effectively stripped the landlord of his right to cancel the lease on the ground alleged." Lafayette Realty Co. v. Joseph Puglia, 10 Orleans App. 105.

Moreover, where "defendant was offered its money, and could have had it before it even brought suit to annul the contract [lease]," he cannot annul the lease for alleged nonpayment of the rent. "Our law does not contemplate that contracts shall be annulled by one party, where the other is able and willing to perform his own part of it as soon as demanded of him." Hemsing v. Wiener-Loeb Grocery Co., 157 La. 189, 102 So. 303, 304.

Hence, although "it is true that ordinarily a lessor may dissolve a lease for failure on the part of the lessee to pay the rent promptly when due, [nevertheless] the right to dissolve a lease is subject to judicial control according to circumstances.'" Brewer v. Forest Gravel Co., 172 La. 828, 135 So. 372, 373, citing, Sieward v. Denechaud, 120 La. 720, 45 So. 561; Prude v. Morris, 38 La. Ann. 767, 769. See, also, Saxton v. Para Rubber Co., 166 La. 866, 118 So. 64; Schnaider v. Graffagnini, 154 La. 363, 97 So. 491; Bonnabel v. Metairie Cypress Co., 129 La. 928, 57 So. 271; Standard Brewing Co. v. Anderson, 121 La. 935, 46 So. 926, 15 Ann. Cas. 251.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court, and that of the Court of Appeal affirming the same, are reversed and set aside, and it is now ordered that the demand of the plaintiff be rejected at his cost in all courts.