DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lewis v. Clay, 60 So. 2d 78.

16 citing documents.

  • Jackson v. Jackson 411 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    quoted, with approval, from Whittington v. Heirs of Pegues, 165 La.
  • Milton v. Milton 364 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Phillips v. Nereaux 357 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    641 , (1954); , (1952); Coney v. Coney, 220 La.
  • Barnett v. Barnett 339 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    There the court said: " , (1952).
  • Miles v. Miles 328 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Primeaux v. Libersat 307 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Perry v. Perry 282 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    663 , (1952) is directly on point with the problem presented here.
  • Succession of Pittman 282 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Mut v. Mut 222 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Succession of Teagle 206 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    “Despite the ingenious argument of able attorney for the appellant, parol evidence is not admissible for the purpose of at *756 tacking the validity of a deed in an action between the parties to it, to show— contrary to the statements and acknowledgments in an authentic act of sale — either that the true intent of the deed was to donate rather than to sell the property transferred ( , ; Whittington v. Heirs of Pegues, 165 La.
  • Elrod v. Le Ny 193 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
  • Locantro v. Petrie 144 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    2d 648 ; , .” In Coney v. Coney, 220 La.
  • Succession of Blades 127 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
  • Girard v. Donlon 127 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    Despite the ingenious argument of able attorney for the appellant, parol evidence is not admissible for the purpose of attacking the validity of a deed in an action between the parties to it, to show—contrary to the statements and acknowledgments in an authentic act of sale—either that the true intent of the deed was to donate rather than to sell the property transferred ( , ; Whittington v. Heirs of Pegues, 165 La.
  • Succession of Hemenway 83 So. 2d 377 La. 1955
    recited the real and true consideration, for we held in the Kittredge Case, supra, that where separate real estate of husband or wife is given in exchange for other real estate, property received in exchange is separate property, though the deed does not state property was bought with separate funds.” , .
  • Succession of Chapman 73 So. 2d 789 La. 1954