Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Succession of Foster, 26 So. 568.

17 citing documents.

McInnis-Peterson Chevrolet, Inc. v. Riles 333 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
1670 , , said that, where the holder of a note attempts to enforce such a provision for an attorney’s fee, ‘the burden rests upon the plaintiff, seeking to recover, * * * to show that there was a necessity for so doing * * *.’ However, a reading of the decision in Succession of *315 Foster, supra, indicates that that was so
Burris v. Gay 324 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
1670 , , said that, where the holder of a note attempts to enforce such a provision for an attorney's fee, `the burden rests upon the plaintiff, seeking to recover, * * * to show that there was a necessity for so doing * * *.'
Braswell v. Morris 275 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
Succession of Powers 255 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Maurin v. Adam Lumber Co. 140 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
217 , , in which the Supreme Court, referring to , 26 So.
St. Charles Dairy, Inc. v. Hayes 96 So. 2d 494 La. 1957
1670 , , this court on rehearing pointed out that a provision similar to the one we have here under consideration was to be regarded in the nature of a stipulation for a penalty, and that “the burden would rest upon the party seeking to enforce it to establish clearly, and affirmatively, the existence of the conditions
Brantley v. Tugwell 66 So. 2d 800 La. 1953
1670 , ; Foundation Finance Co. v. Robbins, La.App., 144 So.
Thompson v. Jones 8 So. 2d 286 La. 1942
1670 , ; Mayer v. Stahr, 35 La.Ann.
Richland State Bank v. Brock 177 So. 454 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1937
1670 , ; Perritt & Lawhon v. Butler, 19 La.App.
Holstead v. Lewis 160 So. 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Schaefer v. Brown 151 So. 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Foundation Finance Co. v. Robbins 144 So. 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Ann. 1670, (a much cited case), our Supreme Court, in a syllabus, said: “The fee of the attorney of the mortgage creditor, fixed in the act of mortgage on the amount of the debt, forms part of the demand.
Succession of Erwin 142 So. 809 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Ann. 1671 , , the court said that the stipulation for the payment of such fees was in the nature of a penalty, and that the party seeking to recover it should establish clearly and affirmatively the existence of the conditions required for its enforcement.
Merchants' & Farmers' Bank & Trust Co. v. Johnson 142 So. 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Ann. 16T0, , the Supreme Court held, on a motion to dismiss: “The fee of the attorney of the mortgage creditor, fixed in the act of mortgage on the amount of the debt, forms part of the de-.
Pugh v. Houseman Roofing Co. 116 So. 189 La. 1928
Ann. 1671 , ; A. Abraham & Son v. N. O. Brewing Association, 110 La.
Boagni v. Breaux 78 So. 594 La. 1918
Rogge v. Close 64 So. 400 La. 1914