Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Legier v. Braughn, 49 So. 22.

31 citing documents.

Miller v. Smith 151 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
478 ; Legier v. Braughn, 1909, , 49 So.
Haeuser v. Castrogiovanni 106 So. 2d 306 La. 1958
Newman v. Fidelity Mutual Insurance Co. 86 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
“ ‘A prayer for general relief authorizes all ordinary decrees which the pleadings and evidence may justify.’ , 49 So.
Dixon v. Zemurray 82 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Richard v. Kansas City So. Ry. Co. 55 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
“ ‘A prayer for general relief authorizes all ordinary decrees which the pleadings and evidence may justify.’ , 49 So.
Moore v. Vives 49 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Fox v. Doll 46 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Lastie v. Cortinas 39 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
478 ; Legier v. Braughn, 1909, , 49 So.
Searcy v. Gulf Motor Co. 37 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
478 ; Legier v. Braughn, 1909, , 49 So.
Item Co. v. De Lerno 10 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Noto v. Blasco 198 So. 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. v. Lacoste 182 So. 314 La. 1938
Lyons Planning Mills v. Guillot 146 So. 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Yates v. Batteford 139 So. 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
on page 466, , refer to forfeited earnest money as “damages for the breach of a promise of sale.” Is it of any importance that the contract did not reciprocally stipulate that the prospective vendor might recede from his promise to sell by returning the total amount paid, together with 25 per cent, thereof?
Chambers v. Vega 137 So. 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Livingston v. Southport Mill, Ltd. 136 So. 289 La. 1931
Costello v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. 135 So. 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
100 , decided February 16, 1931; Legier V: Braughn, , 49 So.
Stumpf v. Baronne Building, Inc. 135 So. 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Abadie v. Gluck's Restaurant Corporation 121 So. 757 La. 1929
Wright v. Derbes 122 So. 57 La. 1929
“Earnest, in the civil law», is a sum of money which one of the contracting parties *342 delivers to the other at the time of the contract, and is .presumed to be a forfeit, in the absence of evidence that the parties then and there intended to bind themselves by an irrevocable contract.” , 49 So.
Buckman v. Stafford, Derbes & Roy, Inc. 119 So. 701 La. 1929
Breaux v. Burkenstock 115 So. 482 La. 1928
DeBellevue v. Couvillion 3 La. App. 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
The principle is thus stated in Legier vs. Braughn, (466) 49 South.
Le Goaster v. Lafon Asylum 106 So. 329 La. 1925
463, ; Kinder v. Scharff et al., 123 La.
Fowler v. Phillips 106 So. 26 La. 1925
Sizeler v. Cloney 2 La. App. 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
In Legier vs. Braughn, , 49 South.
Trichel v. Home Ins. 99 So. 403 La. 1924
Terrebonne v. Cheramie 92 So. 388 La. 1922
Northcut v. Johnson 78 So. 731 La. 1918
Maloney v. Aschaffenburg 78 So. 761 La. 1917
Lyons v. Woman's League 50 So. 18 La. 1909