Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Voiers v. Atkins Bros., 36 So. 974.

20 citing documents.

Garnett v. Battistella 485 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
art. 508 (1870); , 36 So.
Knoll v. Delta Development Company 218 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
Crain v. Crain 206 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Alexander v. Bates 206 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Juneau v. Laborde 70 So. 2d 451 La. 1953
On this point we *684 , 36 So.
Ferrier v. Mossler 23 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
See Voiers v. Atkins Brothers (on rehearing) , 36 So.
Venta v. Ferrara 196 So. 550 La. 1940
Fourth paragraph, Article 508, Revised Civil Code; , 36 So.
S. Gumbel Realty & Securities Co. v. Levy 156 So. 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
332 , .” But there are two things of which we cannot lose sight, and they are that manifestly the plaintiff did everything it could to reconstruct the premises and to replace all fixtures and additions of which it had knowledge, whereas the defendant steadfastly refused to render any assistance in determining how the partit
Dawson v. Victoria Lumber Co. 135 So. 22 La. 1931
Gast v. Loeb 8 La. App. 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
327 , ; Peet, Yale & Bowling vs. McDaniel & Co., 27 La.
Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. v. Nowlin 115 So. 140 La. 1927
Civil Code, art. 508; , 36 So.
DeBellevue v. Couvillion 3 La. App. 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
In the case of Voiers vs. Atkins, (342), 36 South.
Anderson v. Shaw 60 So. 50 La. 1912
Vaccaro v. Pigniolo 57 So. 787 La. 1912
Miguez v. Delcambre 54 So. 870 La. 1911
This does not, however, apply to expenses incurred in the preservation of the property, and does not prevent the possessor in bad faith from offsetting the elairn of the owner for fruits and revenues by a claim, on his part, for expenses incurred in useful improvements, to the extent that the owner is benefited thereby.” , 36 South.
Quaker Realty Co. v. Bradbury 48 So. 570 La. 1909
Succession of Davis 6 Teiss. 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1908
In Gele vs. Cotonio, 3 Court of Appeal 165, after referring to the case at -333, we said: “But we do not think that the declaration of the foregoing case that the possessor in bad faith cannot recover for *71 'ditching, clearing land and other improvements inseparable from the soil, so clearly applicable to rural property, should be ¡strictly followed so far as regards lots in a city.
Wells v. Blackman 46 So. 437 La. 1908
He cannot recover for ditching, clearing the land, and other improvements inseparable from the soil.” , 36 South.
Gele v. Cotonio 3 Teiss. 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1906
Because the owner of the soil is liable “only for those improvements of which he may order the removal” and “in such a case, the principal by which one man is not permitted to enrich himself at the expense of another, has no application,” .
Lisso & Bro. v. Unknown Owner 38 So. 282 La. 1905