Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Everhardt v. Sighinolfi, 95 So. 2d 632.

13 citing documents.

Charia v. Hulse 619 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
(1957) where the court considered the petition and an annexed contract to sell real estate.
McGee v. V. T. Pierret Realty & Construction Co. 407 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
wherein it was stated that such language “clearly negatives the idea of the purchasers being in automatic default for mere failure to perform”, since it requires that the vendor must tender title before the deposit is forfeited.
Mills v. Adams 365 So. 2d 1325 La. 1978
Luna v. Atchafalaya Realty, Inc. 325 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
(1957), which case was relied upon by the trial judge herein.
Briggs v. Siggio 285 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
allege the non-performance of that condition in defence, where it was through his fault it was not performed,' and `It is a trite and perfectly well established principle of jurisprudence, that no man can take advantage of his own wrong, and the law has been careful to make a special application of this maxim to cases where conditions form part of the contract.'" , (1957), where the vendor in an agreement to buy and to sell prevented the timely passage of the sale by absenting himself; (2d Cir.
Fortenberry v. Decay 279 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
(1957), and reference is made thereto for a full discussion of the issue here presented.
Finkel v. Texas-Edwards, Inc. 267 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Alley v. New Homes Promotion, Inc. 247 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
[4] , (1957) in which identical contractual language was used.
Transcontinental Development Corp. v. Bruning 197 So. 2d 897 La. 1967
Elliott v. Dupuy 135 So. 2d 54 La. 1961
New Orleans Opera Guild, Inc. v. Local 174, Musicians Mutual Protective Union 134 So. 2d 901 La. 1961
Clark v. Reed 122 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
Johnston v. City of New Orleans, supra; , ; Louisiana State Board of Education v. Lindsay, 227 La.
Reine v. Kirn 102 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
392 , ; see also Cocí v. Johness, Inc., La.App., and Everhardt v. Sighinolfi, 1957, , , wherein the Di Cristina case is distinguished by virtue of the following language which was used in the agreement to purchase and seE and which may also be used to distinguish the case of Davis v. Oaklawn, Inc.: “In the event that purchaser fails to comply with this agreement within the time spec