Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Muntz v. Algiers & G. Ry. Co., 38 So. 410.

19 citing documents.

Berry v. Berry 371 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Succession of Killingsworth 292 So. 2d 536 La. 1974
Macaluso v. Thibodeaux 94 So. 2d 426 La. 1957
See Muntz v. Algiers & Gretna Railway Company, , 38 So.
Motors Securities Company v. Hines 85 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
Automotive Finance Co. v. Daigle 80 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
The lower court maintained the •exception on the basis of the previous jurisprudence, to the effect that one could not be called in warranty unless there was a specific contract to hold the warrantee harmless from the debt sued upon, Article 378, Code of Practice; Muntz v. Algiers & G. R. Co., , 38 So.
First State Bank v. Burton 73 So. 2d 453 La. 1954
Roberts v. Radalec, Inc. 64 So. 2d 189 La. 1953
Girouard v. Agate 44 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Great American Ins. Co. v. Gulf States Truck Lines 37 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
Mallet v. Thibault 31 So. 2d 601 La. 1947
693 , where it was held that the question of whether a stipulation in a deed for the advantage of a third person has been availed of “is a question of fact which must be ascertained from contemporaneous and surrounding circumstances, and is not- confined to the recitals of the act on which the obligations of the contracting parties are to be found.” See also Muntz v. Algiers & G. R. Co., , 38 So.
Bank of Baton Rouge v. Hendrix 193 So. 713 La. 1940
Under the doctrine laid- down in Muntz v. Algiers & G. R. Co., , 38 So.
Bultman v. Wood 169 So. 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Counsel criticises our opinion in this case on the ground that it is not in accord with the holding in Muntz v. Algiers & Gretna R. R. Co., , 38 So.
Bultman v. Wood 168 So. 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
verbo garantie simple.”' See, also, Muntz v. Algiers & Gretna R. R. Co., , 38 So.
Sherman v. O'Sullivan 164 So. 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Article 378, Code of Practice; Muntz v. Algiers & G. R. Co., , 38 So.
N. O. Public Service, Inc. v. Stewart 119 So. 435 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
We think the privity in contract between defendant and exceptor brings the case within the rule in Muntz vs. R. R. Co., , 38 So.
Opelousas Finance Co. v. Walker Opelousas Motor Car Co. 6 La. App. 308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Bennett v. Weinberger 107 So. 780 La. 1926
In the case of Muntz v. Algiers & Gretna R. Co., , 114 La.
Harwood-Barley Mfg. Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. 74 So. 569 La. 1917
In contradiction of that doctrine counsel for the defendant and warrantors cite the decision in Muntz v. Algiers & Gretna Railway Co., , 38 South.
Muntz v. Algiers & G. St. Ry. Co. 40 So. 688 La. 1906