Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Andrews v. Sheehy, 51 So. 122.
- Harvey Canal Limited Partnership Versus National Response Restoration Corp. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
- Peschier v. Peschier 419 So. 2d 923 La. 1982
- Sullivan v. Sullivan 260 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
- Dipuma v. Anselmo 137 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
-
Wadsworth v. Alexius
99 So. 2d 77
La. 1958
*199 It is appropriate here, we believe, , 51 So.
-
Lewis Hardware Co. v. Gremillion
65 So. 2d 807
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1953
While neither counsel has cited to us a case in point nor have we been able to discover any, we find pertinent language to this effect in Andrews v. Sheehy, 1910, , 51 So.
- Davis v. Lewis & Lewis 60 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
- Roque v. Henry 189 So. 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
- Klotz v. Tru-Fruit Distributors 173 So. 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
-
Adams v. Ross Amusement Co.
161 So. 601
La. 1935
76 only authorized the bonding of the property attached by the third party claiming the ownership during pendency of the suit, while article 398 of the Code of Practice “has for its object to set aside the order of seizure as having been effected on property * * * owned * * * by the third person making the opposition,” which is “considered as' a separate demand.” , 51 So.
- Adams v. Ross Amusement Co. 158 So. 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
-
King v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
143 So. 95
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1932
222 , , and authorities there cited.
- Collins v. McCook 136 So. 204 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1931
-
Zeller v. Louisiana Cypress Lumber Co.
121 So. 670
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1928
222 , ; Martel vs. Block, 154 La.
-
Catlett v. Henry
4 La. App. 100
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
Defendant cites Andrews vs. Sheehy, , in support of his contention.
- Latham v. Glasscock 108 So. 100 La. 1926
-
Darce v. One Ford Automobile
2 La. App. 185
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
See Andrews vs. Sheehy, , 51 South.