Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite McDuffie v. Walker, 51 So. 100.

202 citing documents.

Strange v. Robinson 189 So. 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
[152], 167, ; Waller v. Colvin, 151 La.
Chachere v. Superior Oil Co. 187 So. 321 La. 1939
Goldsmith v. McCoy 182 So. 519 La. 1938
Gulf Refining Co. v. Evans 181 So. 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Long v. Chailan 175 So. 42 La. 1937
The defendants cite the leading case on the subject, , 51 So.
Hunter v. Forrest 164 So. 163 La. 1935
Masters v. Cleveland 162 So. 51 La. 1935
Masters v. Cleveland 158 So. 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Tharp v. Richardson 155 So. 239 La. 1934
Southern Casualty Co. v. Ross 153 So. 673 La. 1934
Conservative Homestead Ass'n v. Guglielmo 148 So. 737 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1933
Const. 1921, art. 19, § 19; , 51 So.
Westwego Canal & Terminal Co. v. Pizanie 142 So. 691 La. 1932
State Ex Rel. Hebert v. Recorder of Mortgages 143 So. 15 La. 1932
379 , 381, this court said: “We take it to be well settled under our law that, while a sale of immovable property may be good as between the parties by virtue, of their agreement, it is void as to third persons until registered.” *99 , 51 So.
Tremont Lumber Co. v. Powers & Critchett Lumber Co. 139 So. 12 La. 1931
Walker v. Spence 134 So. 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
State Ex Rel. Board of School Directors v. Brooklyn Cooperage Co. 128 So. 470 La. 1930
Code, which reads: “ ‘All sales, contracts and judgments affecting immovable property, which shall not be so recorded, shall be utterly null and void, except between the parties thereto.’ “It is conceded that this Article expresses the law as between individuals, and that the .registry laws affecting them are crystallized *536 , 51 So.
Hathorn v. Hundley 125 So. 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
This doctrine was forever settled in this state in the case of McDuffie vs. Walker, , *326 51 So.
Hughes v. Morrissey 124 So. 772 La. 1929
Metairie Park, Inc. v. Currie 122 So. 859 La. 1929
Coyle v. Allen 122 So. 596 La. 1929
McGill v. Urban 120 So. 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
528 , and McDuffie vs. Walker, , 51 So.
Lee v. Long 118 So. 320 La. 1928
ham acquired the several tracts were extant upon the public records of the parish.” And the court held: “All of which facts, taken in connection with the recitals of the mortgage and the title papers of record in the parish where the land is situated, furnish ample means of identification, and were sufficient to serve as notice to third persons dealing with Baham.” , 51 So.
Dalbey v. Continental Supply Co. 115 So. 807 La. 1928
Giarratano v. Angermeier 7 La. App. 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Howard v. Coyle 111 So. 697 La. 1927
The law is well settled that all contracts affecting immovable property, which shall not be recorded in the parish where the property is situated, “shall be utterly null and void except between the parties thereto.” , 51 So.
Vaughn v. Kemp 4 La. App. 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
916 , the court held that a purchaser of real estate cannot be affected by unrecorded claims against the property, even though he had actual knowledge of them at the time of the purchase, and the court said: “By the decision in McDuffle vs. Walker, , 51 South 100 , and many subsequent decisions, the once vexatious question of whether the purchaser of real estate can be affected by unrecorded claims against the property, even though at the time of the purchase he had actual knowledge of them, has
Ellington v. Ellis & Dorsett 2 La. App. 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
The case of McDuffie vs. Walker, , 51 South.
Richardson Oil Co. v. Herndon 102 So. 310 La. 1924
In the other case Mr. Justice Monrpe has well emphasized the difference, thus: “Fraud cuts down everything; * * * it cannot, however, be said that a third person perpetrates a fraud merely by treating as void, as to himself, a contract which the law in terms declares ‘shall be utterly null and void, except between the parties thereto.’ ” , 51 So.
Washington Bank & Trust Co. v. Cowan-Kerr Lumber Co. 99 So. 881 La. 1924
Bowers v. Langston 100 So. 301 La. 1923
At this point, it may be mentioned that apparently Bonnie Thomas claimed some sort of “equity” in this last-named property as late (or as early) as December 8, 1894; but so far as this transcript shows he never at any time had any title thereto until 1904, as aforesaid, and so that may be dismissed, even if it had any bearing on this controversy ( , 51 South.
Otis v. Texas Co. 96 So. 1 La. 1922
108 , 90 South, p. 528, we said : “That innocent third parties who deal on the faith of the public records are protected thereby is a question no longer open to discussion, as it is the settled jurisprudence of this state.” , Mr. Justice Provosty, concurring in that decision, said: “ , 51 South.
Gonsoulin v. Sparrow 90 So. 528 La. 1921
Jackson v. Creswell 86 So. 329 La. 1920
Nilson v. Brinkerhoff 83 So. 902 La. 1919
Harang v. Bowie Lumber Co. 81 So. 769 La. 1919
In support of the argument, they cite the decision in McDuffie y, Walker, , 51 South.
Soniat v. Whitmer 74 So. 916 La. 1916
ed by Act 22, p. 25, of 1904 is a question which need not be considered in the present case, for two very peremptory reasons: First, that Soniat testifies that at the time of his acquisition he had no knowledge of the pendency of any suit in which a privilege was being demanded on said property, and there is no reason for not believing him; and, Second, , 51 South.
Bell v. Saunders 72 So. 727 La. 1916
alleged contract whereby it is said that Bolden sold the land to, and became the tenant of, defendant was not recorded until after the registry of the .act whereby he sold the land to plaintiff and Elam and became the usufructuary thereof, acknowledging them as the owners, and that the first contract was inadmissible in •evidence, because, as to them,' “utterly null and void.” , 51 South.
Dreyfous v. Cade 70 So. 231 La. 1915
The alleged notice is not equivalent to registry ( [ 51 South.
Mouton v. Southern Saw Mill Co. 70 So. 813 La. 1915
Moreover, the doctrine of the case cited has been categorically overruled, and this court has recognized and applied the law which declares that all contracts affecting immovable property, which shall not be recorded in the parish where the property is situated, “shall be utterly null and void, except between the parties thereto.” , 51 South.
McQueen v. Flasdick-Black Land & Lumber Co. 65 So. 900 La. 1914
Parent v. First Nat. Bank 65 So. 233 La. 1914
Louisiana Land & Pecan Co. v. Gulf Lumber Co. 64 So. 713 La. 1913
Haas v. Fontenot 61 So. 831 La. 1913
Schneidau v. New Orleans Land Co. 61 So. 225 La. 1912
* * * It cannot, however, be said that a third person perpetrates a fraud merely by treating as void, as to himself, a contract which the law, in terms, declares shall be utterly null and void, except between the parties thereto.” , 51 South.
Tensas Delta Land Co. v. Fleischer 62 So. 129 La. 1912
Atchafalaya Land Co. v. Brownell-Drews Lumber Co. 58 So. 500 La. 1912
McDuffie Case, , 51 South.
Webster Sand, Gravel & Construction Co. v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co. 57 So. 529 La. 1912
Bender v. Chew 56 So. 1023 La. 1911
Grant Timber & Mfg. Co. v. Gray 56 So. 663 La. 1911
Washington v. Filer 54 So. 128 La. 1911