DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Davies v. Bierce, 38 So. 488.

21 citing documents.

  • UNITED INVESTORS LIFE v. Alexander 662 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    1st Cir. 1971); , 38 So.
  • Dahl v. National Bank of Commerce in New Orleans 196 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
  • Smith v. Succession of Johnson 185 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Our Supreme Court, in the case of Davies v. Bierce (1905) , 38 So, 488 , after stating: “The test of admissibility in such cases is whether the evidence offered tends to alter, vary, or contradict the written contract, or only to prove an independent, collateral fact about which the written contract was silent.
  • Carbo v. Maison Jolie, Inc. 155 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Johnson v. Capital City Ford Company 85 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
  • Corona v. Corona 59 So. 2d 889 La. 1952
  • Paige v. Pecoraro 48 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
  • Segari v. Uchello 44 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
  • Salley v. Louviere 158 So. 676 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    674 , , relied upon as precedent.
  • Harnischfeger Sale Corporation v. Sternberg Co. 154 So. 10 La. 1934
    675 , , though relied on by defendant, does not support, in our view, defendant’s position.
  • New Orleans Terminal Co. v. Dixie Rendering, Inc. 140 So. 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
  • Ewell v. Giamanco 139 So. 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    Intervener, we think, was -entitled to have his plea considered and passed upon as a whole, and not be restricted to just the written instrument, , 38 So.
  • Stewart v. Clay 123 So. 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    633 , , our Supreme Court said: “The test of admissibility in such case is whether the evidence offered tends to alter, vary or contradict the written contract, or only to prove an independent, collateral fact about which the written contract is silent.
  • Brenard Manufacturing Co. v. Gibbs 119 So. 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    Such testimony having been admitted over plaintiff’s objection, cannot be considered by us. In the case of Davis vs. Bierce, , 38 So.
  • Blaushild v. Rockhold 7 La. App. 709 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    Davies vs. Bierce, , 38 So.
  • Brenard Manufacturing Co. v. Gibbs 4 La. App. 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    Such testimony having been admitted over plaintiff’s objection, cannot be considered by us. In the case of Davis vs. Bierce, , 38 South.
  • Brenard Mfg. Co. v. M. Levy, Inc. 109 So. 43 La. 1926
  • Wessell Plumbing Co. v. Norton 3 La. App. 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    s a sufficient denial of plaintiff’s allegations of fact, and in support of that contention they cite Henderson vs. Price, Manning’s Unreported Cases, page 2, to the effect that “The clause of an answer, wherein is pleaded the general issue, must be taken in connection with other clauses which are equally a part of the defense, and the whole construed together.” And the case of Davies vs. Bierce, , 38 South.
  • Brenard Manufacturing Co. v. M. Levy, Inc. 2 La. App. 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    Counsel for defendant cite Davis vs. William W. Bierce, , 38 South.
  • Brenard Manufacturing Co. v. Levy, Inc. 4 La. App. 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    Therefore the case Davies vs. Bieros, , 38 South.
  • Barfield v. Saunders 40 So. 593 La. 1906
    24 , 66 L. R. A. 503; , 3 South.