HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. v. MARTIN 148 Tex. 175, 222 S.W.2d 995 (1949) FACTS: Parties: Appellant: Humble Oil & Refining Co., Mrs. A.C. Love and husband (Δ) Appellee: Martin (acting on behalf of his two daughters) (Π) Procedural History:  Trial court found in favor of Π  Appellate court affirmed  Δ appeal Relevant Facts:  Πs were injured by unoccupied car belonging to Love and left at filling s by Humble Oil for servicing  Before any employee of Humble touched the car it rolled off the premise street and struck Π from behind as they were walking into the yard of th ISSUE:  Whether Humble is liable for injuries sustained by Π from the gas statio W.T. Schneider PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS: Plaintiff:  Defendant:  Humble – operator of gas station was independent contract and thus not Humble DISPOSITION OF THE COURT:  Affirmed RULE OF LAW:  A entity that has control over another entity are indicative of an agency r HOLDING:  Schneider was an agent of Humble therefore Humble is liable for damag agent COURT’S REASONING:           Humble owned station and products sold within An agreement stating that Humble was not the principal, employees wer Schneider, no one considered Humble a principal, employees thought of boss are not conclusive against the principal-agent relationship The contract between Humble and Schneider fosters the relationship mo repudiates it Humble had control over details of the station work as regards to Schnei therefore his employees Contract required Schneider to make reports and perform other duties in with the operation of said station that may be required of him from time Company [Humble] Humble has to pay ¾ of the utilities Title of the retail products remained in Humble’s name until delivered to Humble had strict supervision and financial control over retail products Humble furnished station location, equipment, advertising, products and part of the current operating costs Contract required Schneider to do anything Humble told him to