Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite National Bank of Commerce v. Sullivan, 41 So. 480.

20 citing documents.

Guillory v. Terra Intern., Inc. 613 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
And in the case of a crop pledge it was held by the court in the case of National Bank of Commerce vs. Sullivan, , that a person advancing money to be used in the making of a crop must prove that it was so used in order to preserve his pledge, where the privilege is contested.
City Bank and Trust Co. v. Marksville Elevator Co. 221 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
Alexandria Production Credit Ass'n v. Horn 199 So. 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Dunn Mercantile Co. v. Hudson 136 So. 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Buelow v. Abell 121 So. 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
It is true that in the case of National Bank of Commerce vs. Sullivan (Union Oil Company, Intervenor), , 41 So.
Sauls v. Bracy 4 La. App. 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
761 ; National Bank of Commerce vs. Sullivan, , 41 South.
Gournay v. Prather 4 La. App. 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
pledge had been already advanced, citing Bank vs. Sullivan, , 41 South.
Cargill v. Otwell 3 La. App. 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
And in the case of a crop pledge it was held by the court in the case of National Bank of Commerce vs. Sullivan, , that a person advancing money to be used in the making of a crop must prove that it was so used in order to preserve his pledge, where the privilege is contested.
American Cotton Oil Co. v. Spiller Sugar Co. 108 So. 878 La. 1925
istry of the written instrument authorized by Act No. 66, * * * of 1874, is intended to bear upon the crop as security for the reimbursement of the money that the planter ‘may require’ for necessary expenses of the crop and plantation, and not as security for money which has already been advanced and used before the execution and registry of the instrument.” , 41 So.
Traylor v. Murphy 2 La. App. 593 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1925
National Bank of Commerce vs. Sullivan, , 41 South.
Bank of Houma v. Shaffer 101 So. 403 La. 1924
Purity Feed Mills Co. v. Moore 93 So. 196 La. 1922
Duke v. Crawford, Jenkins & Booth 91 So. 440 La. 1922
Roger v. Milliken & Farwell 91 So. 143 La. 1922
761 , is in conflict with the provisions [of articles 27 to 32, inclusive] of the Code of Practice, and must be, and is now, overruled.” We also said, in Union Seed & Fertilizer Co. v. J. Supple’s Sons Planting Co., , 41 South.
Pierson v. Carmouche 2 Pelt. 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1920
2139; National Bank vs Sullivan, .
Pierson v. Carmouche 84 So. 59 La. 1920
Union Seed & Fertilizer Co. v. J. Supple's Sons Planting Co. 71 So. 949 La. 1916
Coguenhem v. Himalaya Planting & Mfg. Co. 73 So. 301 La. 1916
This amount, therefore, , 41 South.
Loeb v. Collier 59 So. 816 La. 1912
Ann. 133 ), and it was held in National Bank of Commerce v. Sullivan (Oil Co., Intervener), , 41 South.
National Bank of Commerce v. Sullivan 44 So. 734 La. 1907
vener had obtained possession; and the case was “remanded, for the purpose of further inquiry, the admission of further testimony, and further adjudication, as to the use made by defendant of the money advanced to him by plaintiff after the exhaustion of the proceeds of defendant’s two notes for $3,000 each, of date April 18, and May 31, 1904, respectively.” , 41 South.