Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Capo v. Bugdahl, 42 So. 478.

28 citing documents.

Miller v. Smith 151 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
121 ; Capo v. Bugdahl, 1906, , 42 So.
Haeuser v. Castrogiovanni 106 So. 2d 306 La. 1958
Dixon v. Zemurray 82 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
% * :1c * • * * “ , 42 So.
Lastie v. Cortinas 39 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
121 ; Capo v. Bugdahl, 1906, , 42 So.
Searcy v. Gulf Motor Co. 37 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
121 ; Capo v. Bugdahl, 1906, , 42 So.
Ober v. Williams 35 So. 2d 219 La. 1948
Noto v. Blasco 198 So. 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Davis v. McCain 132 So. 758 La. 1931
Moresi v. Burleigh 127 So. 624 La. 1930
Buckman v. Stafford, Derbes & Roy, Inc. 119 So. 701 La. 1929
Codifer v. Holdsworth 7 La. App. 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
403 ; Capo vs. Bugdahl, , 42 So.
Breaux v. Burkenstock 115 So. 482 La. 1928
Millaudon v. Brenan 5 La. App. 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Capo vs. Bugdahl, , 42 So.
Cusachs v. Columbia National Fire Insurance 6 La. App. 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
True, it is, that no set phrase or form of words is necessary to operate (p. 717) a translation of property, but the ones employed must, of themselves, clearly express that object.” In Capo vs. Bugdahl, , 42 So.
Succession of Fay 109 So. 824 La. 1926
See, in this connection, , 42 So.
McMillan v. Lorimer 107 So. 239 La. 1926
121 ; Capo v. Bug *405 dahl, , 42 So.
Fowler v. Phillips 106 So. 26 La. 1925
“I think this case comes under article 2463 of the Revised Civil Code, which reads as follows: ‘But if the promise to sell has been made with the giving of earnest money each of the contracting parties is at liberty to recede from the promise, to wit, he who has given earnest money by forfeiting it and he who has received it by returning it double.’ , 42 So.
Trichel v. Home Ins. 99 So. 403 La. 1924
42 South., 478 , this court held that a contract reading as follows was a mere promise of sale, and not a sale, to wit: “This is to certify that I have this day sold my house No. 1904 St.
Terrebonne v. Cheramie 92 So. 388 La. 1922
McCain v. Hicks 90 So. 506 La. 1921
Louis street, between Roman and Prieur, to Thomas Capo for the sum of $2,300, 10 per cent., $230, paid, balance when act of sale is passed; 1905 taxes to be paid by vendor, also 2 per cent, to agent.” , 42 South.
Northcut v. Johnson 78 So. 731 La. 1918
Maloney v. Aschaffenburg 78 So. 761 La. 1917
Nosacka v. McKenzie 54 So. 351 La. 1911
In the Capo Case, , 42 South.
Joffrion v. Gumbel 48 So. 1007 La. 1909
Legier v. Braughn 49 So. 22 La. 1909
Denis, Danziger & Tessier v. Tilton 45 So. 112 La. 1907
Code art. 240; , 42 South.
Denis v. Tilton 4 Teiss. 391 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1907
Capo vs. Bugldall ; Smith vs. Hurry, decided April 15, 1907, and not yet reported.
Smith v. Hussey 43 So. 902 La. 1907