Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Nelson, 70 So. 2d 665.

19 citing documents.

Winters v. Jean-Batiste 491 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
the court held that a sale of property to a son-in-law is not subject to attack on the basis of Art. 2444, by the children (forced heirs) of the vendor.
Osterland v. Gates 400 So. 2d 653 La. 1981
Osterland v. Gates 391 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
2nd Cir. 1965) , (1953), the trial judge denied Mrs. Fey’s collation claim against Mr. Gates.
Wright v. Wright 346 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
134 .” To the same effect as Scurto, supra, see: , (1953); Little v. Haik, 246 La.
Johnson v. McCorvey 344 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
Miles v. Miles 328 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
To the same effect as Scurto, supra, and Eberle, supra, see: , ; Little v. Haik, 246 La.
Ernst v. Bordes 297 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
We refer to the case of Succession of Nelson, , (1953).
Jennings v. Walker 206 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
s held that transferror’s notes for $600 constituted a real and valid consideration even though there was a recited cash consideration stating: “When a contract, therefore, is attacked on the ground that the expressed consideration does not exist or that there was no consideration for it, the party may show other consideration than that expressed in the contract.” See, also, , (1953) wherein the Supreme Court found that the presumption of simulation created by the possession of the vendor after
Succession of Browne 176 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
Succession of Lewis 157 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
870 , ; , ; Johnston v. Bearden, La.App., .
Domino v. New York Fire Insurance 153 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Nelson et al. v. Wiegand, et ux., , .
Kinney v. Kinney 150 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
Quinette v. Delhommer 146 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Brooke v. Brooke 132 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
We rule that the two sales are not simulated under the rules established and reviewed by the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana in the case of , , which rules are .as follows: “ ‘A simulated sale of a thing results when parties pass a formal act of sale of the thing, for which no price is given, nor intended to be given.’ * * * “ ‘ * * * Being an actual and bona fide payment, although perhaps inadequate in amount, it provides protection to
Spiers v. Davidson 96 So. 2d 502 La. 1957
822 , and authorities there cited; , ; Bank of Abbe-ville & Trust Co. v. Lyons, 185 La.
Succession of Quaglino 95 So. 2d 481 La. 1957
822 , and authorities there cited; , .
Thigpen v. Thigpen 91 So. 2d 12 La. 1956
Distinguished Byrd v. Byrd 88 So. 2d 214 La. 1956
322 , , and Brady v. Brady, La.App., .
McDonald v. Howard 84 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
822 ; Freeman v. Woods, La.App.1941, ; Succession of Nelson, 1953, , .