Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Marbury v. Colbert, 105 La. 467.

24 citing documents.

Mitchell v. Clark 431 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Johnson v. Domino 280 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Delcambre v. Dubois 263 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
A real and reasonably adequate consideration must be paid by the vendee ( , 29 So.
Woods v. Stoma 242 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Sealy Realty Co. v. Brangato 222 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
LeBoeuf v. Malbrough 188 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Gross v. Brooks 130 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Coddou v. Gros 102 So. 2d 480 La. 1958
“The transaction was rather a dation in payment of the property by Keough to Meyers & Co., in consequence of which his liability to them on the two notes was extinguished, which were cancelled and returned to him.” , 29 So.
Jackson v. Golson 91 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
Lerner Shops of Louisiana, Inc. v. Reeves 73 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Breaux, supra, we find that the Court stated: “ , 29 So.
Akard v. Hutton 200 So. 137 La. 1941
Baker v. Patton 186 So. 336 La. 1939
Bell v. Leiendecker 174 So. 89 La. 1937
620, 621 , viz.: “ , 29 So.
Beard v. Nunn 133 So. 429 La. 1931
Waller v. Dawson 111 So. 170 La. 1927
With reference to a vendor’s remaining in possession after executing an act with the right of redemption, and with reference to the effect of á vile price in such sales, , 29 So.
Clarke v. Oden 99 So. 605 La. 1924
Latiolais v. Breaux 98 So. 620 La. 1923
Jefferson v. Herold 81 So. 714 La. 1919
Becker v. Hampton 68 So. 626 La. 1915
On the merits of this case, the plaintiff’s counsel refer to only two decisions to sustain his demand, the case of Franklin v. Sewall, *331 above quoted, , 29 South.
Jolivet v. Chaves 52 So. 99 La. 1910
Rion v. Reeves 48 So. 138 La. 1909
Rester v. Powell 45 So. 372 La. 1907
Leger v. Leger 42 So. 951 La. 1907
Caldwell v. Trezevant 35 So. 619 La. 1904