Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite De Latour v. Lala, 131 So. 211.

41 citing documents.

Katz & Besthoff, Inc. v. Nauer 391 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
276 , ” 265 So.2d at 660.
Friendly Finance Service-East-Gate, Inc. v. Nelson 271 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
276 , (Orleans, 1930) writ refused February 6, 1970; Friendly Finance Service Mid-City, writ refused December 14, 1970.
King Finance Co. of New Orleans v. Johnson 265 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
King Finance Co. of New Orleans v. Howard 265 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
276 , at page 212 (1930); CHF Finance Company, Inc. v. Jochum, 241 La.
Finance System of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Terrell 259 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
276 , ; Seaboard Finance Corp. v. Stipelcovich, La.App., .” Applying each of these rules seria-tim to the case at bar, we have previously noted that the statement tendered by Terrell did omit six open accounts which were plainly in existence on the day of the loan renewal.
All State Credit Plan, Inc. v. Wilson 254 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
276 , at page 212 (1930); CHF Finance Company, Inc. v. Jochum, 241 La.
X-L Finance Co. v. LeDoux 215 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Beneficial Finance Co. v. Cote 216 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Beneficial Finance Co. of Louisiana v. Brantley 211 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
276 , (1930); (La.App., Orl.
Feliciana Finance Company v. Bateman 194 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
276 , ; Seaboard Finance Corp. v. Stipelcovich, La.App., .
X-L Finance Co. v. Donaway 195 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
276 , .” See also Seybold Finance Service, Earl Staehle Finance, Cash Finance *732 Service No. 3, Excel Fina
Midland Discount Company v. Robichaux 184 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
Seaboard Finance Corporation v. Stipelcovich 176 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Cash Finance Service, Inc. v. Haisch 173 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Blue Bonnet Creamery, Inc. v. Gulf Milk Association 172 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
276 , ; Accounts Supervision Company v. Atley, La.App., .
Max Barnett Furniture Co. v. Romano 170 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
General Finance Loan Co. of Downtown Shreveport v. Allen 165 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
276 , .” (1930) In some cases the courts have determined the lender placed no reliance on the incomplete financial statement of the debtor and in other cases contrary decisions were reached.
United Credit Plan, Inc. v. Seminary 162 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
276 , ; Excel Finance Mid-City, Inc. v, Chetta, La.App., .
Beneficial Finance Company, Inc. v. Gardache 164 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Excel Finance Mid City, Inc. v. Chetta 160 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
C H F Finance Co. v. Smith 158 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
276 , (1930): “* * * (1) That defendant made false representations; (2) that these representations were made with the intention of defrauding the plaintiff, and (3) that the plaintiff relied upon and was misled by the false pretenses or representations.” *273 Defendant’s principal argument on this appeal is that plaintiff h
Liberal Finance Corporation v. Holley 157 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
Excel Finance Baronne, Inc. v. Abadie 152 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
276 , , it was held that before Section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S. C.A.
CHF Finance Company v. Corca 152 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
Liberal Finance Gentilly, Inc. v. Brister 152 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
276 , ; McClatchey v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., 228 La.
Blue Bonnet Creamery, Inc. v. Simon 146 So. 2d 162 La. 1962
276 , ; Accounts Supervision Co. v. Atley, La.App., ; Seybold Finance Service, Inc. v. Schwaner, La.
Excel Finance Baronne, Inc. v. Dobbs 146 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
276 , .” But assuming arguendo that the defendant did make false representations with the intention.of defrauding the plaintiff, it taxes our credulity to believe that the purported financial statement induced plaintiff to grant the renewal loan, since it obviously failed to reflect the borrower’s total indebtedness at the
Cash Finance Service No. 3, Inc. v. Rhoden 145 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
276 , , in which it was held: “Analyzing this language, it would appear to us that, before Section 17 (11 USCA § 35) would be 'applicable, the plaintiff must show: (1) That defendant made false representations; (2) that these representations were made with the intention of defrauding *82 the plaintiff, and' (3)' that t
Perdido Finance Co. v. Shephard 144 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
276 , , and followed in the case of Seybold Finance Service, Inc. v. Schwaner, April 28, 1958, La.App., , stated: “* * * before section 17 (11 U.S. C.A.
Earl Staehle Finance, Inc. v. Brooks 144 So. 2d 155 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
276 , and also in the case of C H F Finance Company, Inc. v. Jochum, 241 La.
Excel Finance Treme, Inc. v. Noel 138 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Excel Finance Mid City, Inc. v. Meilleur 137 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
CHF Finance Company v. Jochum 127 So. 2d 534 La. 1961
276 , , the Court analyzed the foregoing language and stated that before Section 17 ( 11 U.S.C.A.
Beneficial Finance Co. v. Hill 128 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
276 , , at page 212, the court, after citing the above provisions of the bankruptcy act, stated: “Analyzing this language, it would appear to us that, before section 17 ( 11 U.S.C.A.
C H F Finance Co. v. Lea 121 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Guedry Finance Co. v. McCubbin 120 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Equitable Securities Company v. Schwaner 107 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
App. 276 , , 212: "The pertinent portion of the Bankruptcy Act in this regard is section 17, as amended by Act of February 5, 1903 ( 11 U.S.C.A.
Seybold Finance Service v. Schwaner 102 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Accounts Supervision Company v. Atley 89 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
276 , , 212 as follows: "`Analyzing this language, it would appear to us that, before section 17 ( 11 U.S.C.A.
Personal Finance Co. of Lake Charles v. Huber 77 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
276 , , the Court said: “The pertinent portion of the Bankruptcy Act in this regard is section 17, as amended by Act of February 5, 1903 ( 11 U.S.C.A.
Personal Finance Co. of Louisiana v. Thomas 167 So. 475 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
276 , , that a suit may be maintained in the state court against a debtor after his discharge in bankruptcy, provided that the debt for which judgment is sought is not one from which the defendant could have been discharged under the bankruptcy laws.