*1 GAS CORP. NATURAL SARTOR et al. v. ARKANSAS 27, 1944. Argued February 3, Decided March 1944. No. 232. G. P. petitioners. Mr. Bullís for Goldstein, Walker, Elias Mr. with whom Messrs. II. C. Jr., O’Quin O’Quin, Leon and Arthur the brief, were on respondent.
Mr. Justice Jackson delivered the Court.
This begun a litigation, decade been termi ago, has nated a summary judgment, rightly and whether so is the issue. The has suit weathered four adjudications, including two trials, District four Court and decisions by the Court of Appeals.1 We will only recite such of its 924; Corp. Sartor, Arkansas Natural Gas v. 78 F. 2d Arkansas Corp. Sartor, 527; Natural Gas Arkansas v. F. 2d v. Natural Sartor Corp., Gas 772; Corp., F. Gas 2d v. Arkansas Natural Sartor 134 F. 2d judgment, as to on the issues
history as bears *2 question. since we consider no other Louisiana, Parish, landowners in Richland Sartors are gas for natural de who 1927 leased their March of lands provides here lease, important, The so far as velopment. (%) of grantor paid one-eighth that “. . . the shall be gas price the value calculated at the rate of of such feet, and three cor per no less than cents thousand cubic atmospheric rected to . . pounds pressure two above 3$ For at many years the made settlement lessee rate. The was that upon suit based contention dur ing all from years 1927 to 1932 inclusive such mar M. ket price was At trial considerably above the last gas the court that for produced prior held the claims March, 20th of barred by the statute of or, limitations as it is in Louisiana, by called prescription. gas produced The 20,1930 issues as to between March the commencement of the action were submitted to the jury, which returned “We, Jury, a verdict: find for that the average price gas Plaintiffs at well in Richland Parish, field Louisiana, during period be ginning 20, March ending 20, March 1933, to be .0445 per 1,000 pressure.” cu. ft. at 8 oz. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed far as “so the verdict of the jury fixed the market value of the upon which plain tiff is entitled to royalties.” recover However, reversed the ruling part petitioner’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and remanded the case for trial of the same issues as to market price gas produced prior to 20,1930. March respondent-defendant The then filed a motion for summary judgment under 56. The Rule granted motion was and the of Appeals Court affirmed.2 importance The questions raised under the judgment rule led us grant certiorari.3 2 134F. 2d 433.
action before March during period price” “rate of market conclusively ad- m. c. as it f., was above 20,1930 thereafter. It is held have been judged in this case to leases to be under such the market Louisiana that mar- established wellhead, there is an at the ascertained requires Unfortunately, this rule point. ket at aat royalty purposes be ascertained oc- few commercial sales place and time at which with royalty gas along market this cur. The who lessees de- customarily make their do not production own at the wellhead but transmit from several liveries *3 gathering lines, turning in it over wells some distance and larger buyers points removed, at somewhat under delivery conditions of different from wellhead deliveries. delivery at these stations price producers The receive 3$ landowner. substantially price often above the to the practice fixing price The the royalty landowner’s marketing at one time and dif- place and of his a ferent at price delivery point another raises the dissatis- problems faction and which produce this case. correctly The Court of we the Appeals, think, followed Louisiana rule in inquiry substantive that the a case of (1) well, this kind shall determine price market at the or (2) there is no market at the well for the gas, actually what it is “in there, worth and determining actual value . . . every properly bearing factor its upon establishment In- should be taken into consideration. in royalties cluded these are the fixed in obtaining in leases the field in light considered of their respective dates, the prices under paid pipe-line and contracts, what elements, besides the were gas, value as such of the included those prices, existing they conditions when made, were and changes of conditions, the end and of the whole aim inquiry, where there was no market fair consideration a ascertain, upon well, being at the well of at the fair value factors, of all relevant defendant.” and sold produced because summary judgment asked a defendant The that dispute” basis for reasonable exists no averred “there market price a there was question during period f. To c. per m. it did not exceed at the wells and affidavits, stipulation it filed position sustain this on the resisted The plaintiffs exhibits. facts, and several on supported inadequately the motion was ground by plaintiffs’ An affidavit papers. of defendant’s the face light of testi- affidavits analyzed counsel defendant’s trials; asserted prior at mony given by the witnesses rejected testimony was all interested witnesses whose verdicts previous recited previous occasions; in ten trials experience forth affiant’s setting case; field, in this asserted out of leases arising of this character and declared there knowledge prices of the market his wellhead. f. at the it to be more than m. c. controversy here that the entire It be observed should only issue relates questions turns on of valuation. time and gas at the plaintiffs’ or value damage If been no delivery. there has place there price, then the full pay sense of failure to damage such if there has been action, no cause of of action. sense, there is a cause *4 judg- “The provides rule summary judgment pleadings, if the sought rendered forthwith
ment shall be affi- together with the file, on depositions, and admissions as to the amount dam- any, that, except davits, show of any material fact ages, genuine issue as there is no mat- to a as a is entitled moving party undisputed Where the (Emphasis supplied.) ter of law.” depending on a cause of action leave the existence of facts 134 F. 2d 434-35. questions damage which the rule has reserved from the summary judgment it is doubtful whether process, sum- mary judgment is warranted on showing. But at least a disposition damage issues of should be jury on evidence which a would not dis- liberty be at believe and which for require would a directed verdict the moving party.
The defendant undertook to the absence of establish by eight triable issue It persons. may the affidavits of be assumed for the purposes the case that the witnesses offered admissible if it which, may given conclusive effect, would sustain the motion. It will purpose serve no to review it in detail, only and we recite which facts made it inconclusive. Affiant Harris was the Vice President Manager and General defendant, clearly an interested witness. Hunter was a lessee and the producer gas with interests apparently similar to those Hargrove of the defendant. was Vice gas President of a pipeline company, owning leases and producing gas, which plaintiffs’ attorney by affidavit defending avers is brought similar cases by these plaintiffs and others. Flor- sheim is an executive officer of two producing compa- with nies similar interests to the defendant, and he avers in the Richland field was never in excess of 30, although in this very case it is adjudged at one time to have been more. Stokes Chief Clerk of a producing company and recites that the records of his company show that “after deducting gross from the realized these corporations various produced from the Richland gas field during the period 1928-1930 inclusive, the actual average unit cost of gathering and delivering the aforesaid gas, the net realization of those corporations from the sale during aforesaid period did not exceed per m. c. f.” Waiving question whether the contents of written records can thus be proved, it hardly would seem that a conclusion based on complicated so and indefinite a
625 a employee of accepted from an calculation, be should in interest with an corporation cross- opportunity without defendant’s
similar
gas from
oil and
producer of
examine.
another
Feazel is
never exceeded
paid
that the
leases,
avers
many
who
is a
McHenry
notwithstanding
jury verdicts.
30,
operating
company
officer
lawyer and executive
to the defendant’s.
with interests
similar
properties
company.
an
of a similar
Taylor
producing
officer
only
useful
leases
from
and contracts and
Apart
these,
de
witnesses,
of these
testimony
in
with the
connection
Mines,
Bureau
bulletin of
Federal
fendant offered a
showing
value at
table
estimated
which included a
c. f.
per
be
Louisiana to
m.
gas produced
wells of
30
statistics
In
state-wide
in 1928.
so far as
1927 and 3.30
market,
local
proving the
could have
value
plaintiffs’ contention
would seem to sustain the
stipulation
on a
price was over
Defendant also relied
30.
of contracts
recited a number
stipulation
of facts. This
conditions, at various
for the sale
under various
It also showed
considerably
excess of
prices, some
where these
delivery
point
the cost of
from the wells to
Much of the con
m. c. f.
sales
made to
0.30
case,5
history
from
troversy,
prior
as will
be seen
may be
question
prices
is over the
whether these contract
Defendant uses these
plaintiffs’
used
aid of the
case.
by showing
away
only
explain
prices
contracts
do
They
differences in market conditions.
not estab
price.
claim
lish the
that there
a wellhead
5
(appeal
626 stipulation also recites that about one-third of the leases in this area specify royalty substantially the same terms as the lease in suit, providing the rest for a fixed royalty of per per pay- m. c. f. About 90 cent of the 30 ments to be based have been made on the basis of 30, remaining per and the 10 per cent at 40 m. c. certainly f. We cannot rule as matter of law that the price paid for royalty gas cent of a such is not factor to by fact-finding in fixing tribunal considered the market value, is, may be, or some evidence to plaintiffs’ sustain contentions.
To summarize the features of the defendant’s motion papers:
1. The only in support evidence con- defendant’s tention as to the wellhead market is testi- mony of experts.
2. Each of them either is an officer of the defendant or is a lessee, or an employee is or officer of a corpora- lessee tion, engaged like in gas defendant production, and each certainly open to inquiry as to the truth of plaintiffs’ attorney’s sworn statements that each in or has interest bias as subject to the litigation. matter of this Every one of defendant’s witnesses had testified general the same trial effect on the claim wherein jury against found testimony and the Court Circuit Appeals affirmed the verdict.
4. Defendant undertook its by motion to show that beyond was controversy prevailed con- stantly averages and not as a-matter of entire period ended March although prior conclusively trial had 19,1930, adjudged that 20,1930 on March and thereafter the price or averaged value as recited the jury verdict. No 4.450 presented change, sudden and no fact is explain offered any change the market and price of such In gas. any change is inconsistent fact with defend- position no trial, ants’ the former which was at time 3‡. period either had the exceeded correctly The Court below has Appeals heretofore judgment noted that only Rule authorizes moving where the is entitled party as a mat- law, quite is, ter where it is clear what truth no genuine for trial, issue purpose remains that the is not to litigants rule cut off from right of trial by jury they really try. have issues to American Insurance Co. *7 Co., 109 F. 2d v. Gentile Brothers 732; Whitaker v. Cole- In F. 305. the man, very proper 115 2d endeavor to ter- litigation minate a before it for the time, fourth we think it overlooked considerations which make the summary inappropriate an very means to that desirable end. considering
In of testimony expert witnesses as to gas leases, value through of this Court Mr. Justice Car they “If any probative dozo has said: have effect, it is that expressions by men of of familiar with opportunities business and its But profit. plainly even if opinions offered, thus entitled weight, to some have such conclusive force that there is no error of law in refus ing to This is true follow them. of opinion gen erally, whether addressed to a jury judge or to a or to a Dayton statutory board.” Power Light & Co. v. Public Commission, 292 U. 290, Utilities S. 299. Cf. Halliday v. States, 94, 97; Forsyth United 315 U. S. v. 120 Doolittle, 73, American 77; U. S. McGowan v. Pressed Tan Co., Bark Quock 575, ; Ting States, 121 U. S. v. United 140 U. S. Hargrave, 417, 420; Head v. U. S. 45, 50; Union Insur Smith, 124 U. 405, ance Co. v. S. 423. The rule has been “that the court stated admits the testimony, then it is jury any, for the to decide whether and if any what, weight to given testimony.” be to the Co. Spring Edgar, v. . the 645, S. 658. “. . jury, U. even if such testimony '628 judg- independent exercise their uncontradicted, may 110, 131. “. . . U. Conqueror, S.
ment.”
in the
of
result
is interested
the witness
fact
mere
require
credibility
sufficient
deemed
the suit is
question of
jury
to the
as a
testimony to be submitted
his
Co.,
Brewing
Moerlein
Christian
v.
Sonnentheil
fact.”
U. S.
judges
jury
“The
has said:
This Court
weighing
.
their
. .
and
the witnesses
credibility of
much depend
determine how
right
had the
testimony
things
it.
upon
many
There are
placed
to be
ence was
stand,
upon the
of a witness
conduct
sometimes
are
his answers
mode
which
and sometimes
counsel, by
questioning
through
him
from
drawn
determining
weight
guided
are to be
jury
which
case,
testimony.
every
credibility
part
of his
That
and
belongs
pre
who are
bar,
jury,
one at
such as the
intelligence
natural
be fitted for
sumed to
knowledge
ways men;
of men and the
their practical
jury
they
as we
trials
should not be dis
long
have
so
it, except
a case mani
possession
in their
turbed
*8
their
abuse of
function.” Aetna
fest
extreme
Life
Ward,
We judgment matter of In the as law. stipulation, titled of the plaintiffs’ the the affidavit bulletin, attorney and witnesses, some, of there is although the its admission of a conclusive, far from evidence or value, by the rules laid down the Court of under Appeals, may It plaintiffs’ case. well be that supports weight the found of evidence would be on a trial to de- with it may But not withdraw fendant. these witnesses from cross-examination, the best yet method devised for test- ing testimony. of trustworthiness And their credibility weight given to be and the opinions is be deter- regular manner. mined, after trial, accordingly is
Reversed. dissenting: Me. Chief Justice Stone, It not denied that two courts below have cor- rectly applied governing right the state law to recover royalties particular type on lease here ques- By law, tion. order to further royalty recover pay- ments in 1,000 excess of the 3 cents cubic feet of gas, petitioners already which have received, they must sus- tain the showing during burden of the relevant period, or value of the at the well- head exceeded By 3 cents. law Louisiana also upon principles proof which it is also not denied that courts correctly below applied, “pipe line” gas, qualifications without and supplementary proof wholly lacking this case, is not evidence of market price or value at the wellhead. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment, single issue was whether petitioners had any which they could sustain resting burden on them showing that during the relevant period, there was a market price or value of gas in excess of 3 cents at the wellhead.
True, Rule (c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure ex- cludes from summary judgment procedure any issue as to the “amount of damages,” where there anis admitted right recovery but the of damages amount in dispute. But the not Rule does exclude from that procedure the of damage issue non vel when that is right decisive of the to recover. This is plain by made subdivision (d) Rule 56, which provides for a partial summary judgment and declares that the order shall specify the “facts that ap- *9 pear without substantial controversy, including the extent to which damages the amount of or other in relief not no appears if it that there is
controversy.” Obviously, damages” in “amount of is not damage, evidence of giving from precluded is not controversy and the court defendant. summary judgment for the whether single presented, petitioners’ here On the issue by showing a of market right to recover can be established in wellhead, gas at the excess of price or value documentary affidavits and evidence cents, respondent’s gas facts that all stipulation show such sales 3 cents or during period the relevant at less. by qualified showed affidavits also not, of some of whom experts, the disinterestedness record, open challenge, the market present value of the at the wellhead did not exceed price and facie prima by To meet the case thus made out cents. tendered papers, petitioners only proof respondent’s each of which state or federal courts pipe-line prices, held earlier cases to no evidence of market had or at the wellhead. See Sartor v. United value Co., 555, 559-569,1 La. and cases cited. Gas any now as presented It is irrelevant issue to a nearly approached as the field more exhaus- period, later jury had returned a verdict sustained the court tion, a average which it found that market below, by was value at the wellhead was excess 3 cents. price or of. average year period, was the for a three it does Since sudden without price, indicate advance and is not a market or force to show value excess probative earlier here in during period of 3 cents issue for which petitioners, precisely suit, brought by present turned on This litigated—the at the wellhead the issue here Supreme Louisiana Court said that field. The the Richland conclusively “proved lessee in that case defendant per thousand cubic feet.” price in does not exceed 3 cents these fields 186 La. *10 aof evidence probative no tendered have
petitioners higher price. it here that issue genuine raise a it to sufficient
Nor is approximately of to respect with appears 3%% made for were that settlements gas field, leases show, papers motion Respondent’s 4 cents. royalties of “in almost settlements these contradiction, without whether as to disputes of compromises case” every developed, properly had been question in the lease royalty further to a entitled was the lessor whether or lessee whether the gas, or from the recovered gasoline severance tax. of a local burden bear the should lessor here furnish no present not of issues compromises Such wellhead, at the or value the market indication this case. decisive is the issue alone which unduly case, this in the circumstances Further, say to judgment procedure restrictive summary judgment must motion for respondent’s Ptiat by affidavits part supported it is because denied subject not to cross- are who witnesses expert interested interpretation of Such an by plaintiffs. examination petitioners behalf of be invoked hardly rule can challenge either probative no tender here, who at 3 cents or less or at wellhead of actual proof sales sought not and who have experts, testimony of afforded Rule 56 privilege themselves to avail offer depositions or to experts’ take the (f) (e) and witnesses at the former of these the cross-examination summary judgment procedure action. trials of terminating groundless function useful a too serves way Rule which limitation warrant its litigation insubstantial. grounds so and on admit does not held courts below have the record both this state On any proof have tend- petitioners whether the issue them which rests on to show burden support ing to cents, the wellhead excess of 3 or value at against them. I think that the must be resolved courts’ they properly applied conclusion is correct; sum- judgment mary procedure, and that should be affirmed. *11 joins Reed
Mr. Justice this dissent. TOW BOAT CO. v. UNITED BOSTON STATES et al. Argued 1, 2, Decided April No. 385. March 1944. Bolster, Mr. Charles S. with whom Mr. Albert T. Gould brief, appellant. was on the Pierce, Mr. Robert L. with whom Solicitor General Fahy, Attorney Assistant Berge, General and Messrs. Cummings, Jr., Knowlton, Walter J. Daniel W. and Ed- Reidy ward brief, M. were on the for the United States Christopher et Mr. Heckman al.; argued E. cause, Mr. James A. Martin brief, was on the for the National Water Inc.,—appellees. Carriers Association,
Mr. Black Justice delivered the the Court. Appellant, Company, Boston Tow Boat was an inter- proceedings venor before the Interstate Commerce