Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Jeffries v. Moore, 53 So. 2d 898.

17 citing documents.

  • Roy v. Gravel 570 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    Generally, an action is not maintainable between partners with respect to partnership transactions unless there has been an accounting or settlement of the partnership affairs, , (1951).
  • Dupuis v. Becnel Co. 535 So. 2d 375 La. 1988
  • Dupuis v. Becnel Co. 527 So. 2d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Dupuis v. Becnel Co. 517 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    (1951), Marine Services, Inc. v. A-1 Industries, Inc., (La.App.
  • Douglas v. Thomas 489 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • Dohm v. O'KEEFE 458 So. 2d 964 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    *967 692, relied on by appellee, involved a suit (not on fraud) between partners (not a third party) and is inapplicable.
  • Bernstein v. Pick 421 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    A careful reading of the following language in Jeffries vs. Moore, , leads us to conclude that as a contribution only the partnership “assets can be used to satisfy the amount due the appellee”.
  • Salsul Company v. Kohlmeyer 325 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
  • Lawrence v. Recoulley 235 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1970
  • Donald v. Glazer 194 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    It is our holding that the appointment by the court of a , and Civil Code Article 2890.
  • In re Dissolution of Commercial Co-partnership Composed of Nelson & Guccione 190 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
  • Ingolia v. Lobrano 144 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
  • Fossier v. American Printing Co., Ltd. 130 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
    279 , ; , ; Ingersoll Corporation v. Rogers, 217 La.
  • Darden v. Cox 123 So. 2d 68 La. 1960
  • Quarles v. Albritton 116 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    In a brief written opinion, the lower court stated that “the exception of nonjoinder must be sustained and these suits dismissed inasmuch as the partnership has not been made a party to the suit.” , , which was suit for the dissolution, liquidation and settlement of a partnership coupled with individual demands by the partners for personal judgments against each other for indebtedness growing out of the partnership relation.
  • Labat v. Labat 95 So. 2d 129 La. 1957
  • In re Taliancich & Perez Co. 59 So. 2d 189 La. 1952