Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Standard Brewing Co. v. Anderson, 46 So. 926.

34 citing documents.

Cantrell v. Collins 984 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Reed v. Seghers 485 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
The rule of law is that when a payee of a series of payments customarily allows their payment after their due date, the payee is deemed to have waived any right to enforce an acceleration clause except after putting the debtor in default, , 46 So.
Nolan J. Cunningham Apartments, Inc. v. Dupre 428 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Noble v. Coleman 423 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Investor Inns, Inc. v. Wallace 408 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Touchet v. Huval 391 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Housing Auth. of City of Abbeville v. Hebert 387 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Credeur v. Credeur Credit Corp. 385 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Sternberg v. Mason 339 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Himbola Manor Apartments v. Allen 315 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Guttuso v. Jax Federal Credit Union 270 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Jones v. Paul 254 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Raytheon Manufacturing Co. v. Jack Neilson, Inc. 196 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Farmers Gas Company v. LaHaye 195 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
Leinhardt v. Marrero Land and Improvement Ass'n, Ltd. 137 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Williams Lumber Co. v. Stewart Gast Bro. 21 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
Rex Credit Co. v. Kirsch 4 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Cantu v. Fenner, Beane Ungerleider 160 So. 399 La. 1935
Schaefer v. Brown 151 So. 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Chapman v. Burke 145 So. 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Maestri v. Nall 145 So. 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Edwards v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana 144 So. 430 La. 1932
Edwards v. Standard Oil Co. 141 So. 513 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
491, 493 , the court found that the lessor had accepted “without comment, of two and possibly three payments of the rent after the due date” — , 46 So.
Distinguished Richardson v. American Nat. Ins. Co. 137 So. 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Saxton v. Para Rubber Co. 118 So. 64 La. 1928
Saxton v. Para Rubber Co. 117 So. 235 La. 1928
Gottlieb v. Schloss 5 La. App. 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
See Brewing Co. vs. Anderson, , 46 South.
Wunderlich v. Simpkin 5 La. App. 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
t, and if he fails to do so seasonably and the obligor (lessee), relying on the past conduct of the obligee, fails to pay the rent or next installment at maturity, the obligee will be equitably estopped from demanding the dissolution or damages, provided the payment be made as has been usual, shortly after the maturity.” See also Roth vs. Fabian, 7 Ct. App. 422; Standard Brewing Co. vs. Anderson, , 46 South.
Mahan v. Lafaye 3 La. App. 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
271 ; Brewing Co. vs. Anderson, , 46 South.
Falco v. Gilbert 2 La. App. 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
The suit of Standard Brewing Co. vs. Anderson, , 46 South.
Reiner v. Maccabee Home Assn 6 Pelt. 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1922
The case of Bacas was affirmed in Standard Brewing Co. vs Anderson .
Briede v. Babst 59 So. 106 La. 1912
Bonnabel v. Metairie Cypress Co. 57 So. 271 La. 1911
Roth v. Fabian 7 Teiss. 422 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1910
In , the Supreme Court said: “This Court has not heretofore had occasion to *424 apply this principle in any case of lease, but the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans has had occasion to do so.