Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Murray v. Barnhart, 42 So. 489.
- Daigle v. Vanderpool 858 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
- Jurisich v. Hopson Marine Service Co., Inc. 619 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
- Poissenot v. Guildcraft Homes, Inc. 394 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
- John Jay Esthetic Salon, Inc. v. Woods 377 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
- Arnold v. Board of Levee Commissioners 366 So. 2d 1321 La. 1978
- Arnold v. BD. OF LEVEE COM'RS, ETC. 366 So. 2d 1321 La. 1978
-
Thibodeaux v. Boeuf Land Co.
303 So. 2d 576
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
“It ought not to he out of all proportion with the value of the thing; for instance the sale of a plantation for a dollar coiild not be considered as a fair sale; it would he considered as a donation disguised.” In connection with Civil Code Article 2464 , 42 So.
- McCain v. Continental Can Company, Inc. 299 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
- Weil Brothers Cotton, Inc. v. Kennington 301 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
- Hibbert v. Mudd 294 So. 2d 518 La. 1974
-
Long v. Foster & Associates, Inc.
136 So. 2d 48
La. 1961
Most of the others, such as Murray et al. *305 v. Barnhart, , 42 So.
- Richard v. Sohio Petroleum Co. 101 So. 2d 676 La. 1958
- Eota Realty Co. v. Carter Oil Co. 74 So. 2d 30 La. 1954
- Hunter Co. v. Shell Oil Co. 31 So. 2d 10 La. 1947
- Noxon v. Union Oil Co. of California 29 So. 2d 67 La. 1946
- Rome v. New River Lodge No. 402 197 So. 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
-
Schaefer v. Cousins
189 So. 158
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1939
[1023] 1030, , it was held that the doctrine of the civil law in that respect, being as old as the civil law itself, was applicable, not only to contracts of sale, but to all other contracts.” The agreement contained the reciprocal obligation whereby the Schaefer heirs, including Mrs. Bomnelucq, agreed to reimburse the Hebrew Ceme
- Cloverland Dairy Products Co. v. Grace 157 So. 393 La. 1934
- W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Toms 153 So. 595 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1934
-
Turk v. Crnkovic
141 So. 434
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
the sale of a lot of cotton and the price which it actually brought (the first sale having failed of completion), the vendor must show that he complied with every requisite and condition on his part, and that the cause of the failure to complete the first sale was attributable entirely to the vendee, failing in which he can not recover the difference from the first vendee.” , 42 So.
- Shreveport Laundries, Inc. v. Teagle 139 So. 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
-
Kinsell & Locke, Inc. v. Kohlman
126 So. 257
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
1034 , .” In this connection, see, also, articles 1931, 1932, and 1933 of the Revised Civil Code.
- Blanchard v. Haber 118 So. 117 La. 1928
-
Blanchard v. Haber
112 So. 509
La. 1927
1030 , , it was held that the principle was one of civil law, as old as the civil law itself, and applicable to' all contracts ; and the French commentators were cited as authority therefor.
- Shelby Mills, Inc. v. Nami 1 La. App. 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
- Pipes v. Payne 101 So. 144 La. 1924
- Braswell v. Columbia County Development Co. 96 So. 534 La. 1923
-
Kennon v. Brooks-Scanlon Co.
86 So. 675
La. 1920
The Barnhart Case, , 42 South.
- Baird v. Atlas Oil Co. 84 So. 366 La. 1920
- Cochran v. Gulf Refining Co. 72 So. 718 La. 1916
- Brown v. Producers Oil Co. 64 So. 674 La. 1914
-
Berl v. Kehoe
58 So. 864
La. 1912
The “one dollar in hand paid by the lessee” is no “consideration,” and may be disregarded ( , 42 South.
- Goodson v. Vivian Oil Co. 57 So. 281 La. 1912
- Kent v. Davis Bros. Lumber Co. 48 So. 451 La. 1909