Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., 81 So. 2d 852.

19 citing documents.

Richardson v. Capitol One, N.A. 91 So. 3d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The Louisiana Supreme Court stated, in Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., Inc. (1955), , , that “a corporation is bound by the knowledge acquired by its .officers or agents relating to its affairs and business.” Hence, a corporation is presumed to know what each officer knows.
Jackson v. Home Depot, Inc. 906 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
633 , (1958); Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., , (1955); (La.App.
Addison v. Thompson 556 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
780 , (1958); Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., , (1955); (La.App.
Gibbs v. Gahagan Land & Timber Co., Inc. 520 So. 2d 1035 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., Inc.
Phillips v. Parker 483 So. 2d 972 La. 1986
Citing Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., , (1955), the court held that because of this theory of constructive knowledge, based on the public records doctrine, the defendants were not in good faith once they had undertaken through their attorney a search of the public records which *975 should have revealed the overlap in the property description
Phillips v. Parker 469 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
3rd Cir.1973), Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., , (1955) (La.App.
King v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co. 371 So. 2d 257 La. 1979
[1] See the most recent case in this Court, Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., , (1955), where the Lumber Company's acquisition by ten years' prescription was denied because the company's attorneys had knowledge of Martin's undivided one-half interest in the property, the Court saying the attorneys' knowledge was to be imputed to the corporation.
Collins v. Slocum 317 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
The cases cited by Walkers [ Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., , (1955); Juneau v. Laborde, 219 La.
Elflein v. Graham 307 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Company, , (1955); Knight v. Berwick Lumber Company, 130 La.
Oliver v. Milliken & Farwell, Inc. 290 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
921 , ; Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., Inc., , .
Board of Com'rs, Lafourche Basin Levee Dist. v. Elmer 268 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
[7] See, e. g., Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., , (1955).
Ed Jones, Jr., Inc. v. Southern Casualty Insurance Co. 268 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
See Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., , (1955) and authorities cited therein.
Sarpy v. Kliebert 250 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Neither do the parties hereto disagree with the well established principle of law that when a purchaser of land employs an attorney to investigate the title thereto, he is bound by what the record discloses, and cannot claim to be in good faith if a defect in his title appears of record, Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., , (1955); (La.App.
Nelson v. Walker 189 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Defendant further contends that this constituted a defect in plaintiff’s title, and that she was charged with knowledge of such defect for the reason that immediately after the partition she secured a loan on the property, in connection with which she had a title examination made, citing Martin v. Schwing Lumber and Shingle Co., Inc., , , and Holley v. Lockett [La.App.], .
Personal Finance, Inc. v. Simms 148 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., , .
Holley v. Lockett 126 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
1 Cir., 1957, ; Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., Inc., 1955, , .
Pitre v. Peltier 122 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
50 , ; and Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., , are relied on by plaintiffs for the proposition that although a proposed purchaser is not bound to investigate title, if he does investigate he is bound by the facts disclosed by the investigation, and .is.
Savoia v. Capello 119 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Under Article 3451 of the Civil Code, supra, the good faith required is that the vendee buy “a thing which he supposes to belong to the person selling it to him, but which, in fact, belongs to another.” The plaintiffs in the petitory action contending that under these facts Savoia was not in good faith, cite the case of Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., , .
Banks v. Yarborough 104 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
In the case of Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co., Inc., 1955, , -854, the Supreme Court made the following observation with reference to the application of article 3479: “Under the express provisions of the LSA-Civil Code, four elements are essential to form the basis of the prescription of ten years acquir-endi causa, the first of which is ‘Good faith on the part o