Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Templeman v. Hamilton & Co., 37 La. Ann. 754.

6 citing documents.

Lemoine v. City of Shreveport 165 So. 873 La. 1936
Templeman v. Hamilton & Co., .
Lemoine v. City of Shreveport 162 So. 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Ann. 880 , while discussing the liability of the seller of a judgment which had been previously discharged, said: “When a debt is assigned the warranty is, not merely that the debt exists, but that it exists such as the parties understood it, that is, accompanied and protected by all the securities contemplated in the contract of assignment.” , the court had before it the transfer of mortgage notes by indorsement “without recourse,” and said: “It is no longer an open question in our jurisprudenc
Cook v. Lemoine 152 So. 689 La. 1934
Templeman v. Hamilton & Co., .
Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Cook 121 So. 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
In the case of Templeman vs. Hamilton & Company, (760), the Court said: “It is no longer an open question in our jurisprudence that the assignor of an in *544 corporeal right, even without warranty, guarantees not only the existence of the right under the express terms of Article —, of the Civil Code, but also the existence of the accessory securities attached and t
Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Walker 119 So. 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
Templeman vs. Hamilton, ; and other cases cited in the syllabus.
Bruning v. City of New Orleans 47 So. 624 La. 1908
Ann. 268 , it was held (syllabus): “‘The vendor of a judgment, _ who stipulates against any recourse or claim whatsoeyer against him, is not relieved from the implied warranty of the existence of the debt at the time of the transfer in the form in which it purported to exist; that is to say, in the form of a judgment.’ “ , the court said (syllabus, page 755): “ ‘The assignor of an incorporeal right, even under stipulation of nonwarranty, warrants the existence, not only of the right but of the m