Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bender v. Chew, 56 So. 1023.

29 citing documents.

Arms v. New Orleans Area Council, Boy Scouts of America 522 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Nugent v. Franks 471 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Stutts v. Humphries 408 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Ziegler v. Babin 242 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Union Producing Co. v. Placid Oil Co. 178 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Wood v. Giardina 175 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1965
Fortier v. Soniat 143 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
Burt v. Valois 144 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Texas & New Orleans R. Co. 127 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
167 ; Bender v. Chew, 1911, , 56 So.
Blevins v. Manufacturers Record Publishing Co. 105 So. 2d 392 La. 1958
Griffin v. Bank of Abbeville & Trust Co. 88 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Southwest Gas Producing Co. v. Hattie Brothers 88 So. 2d 649 La. 1956
Dupre v. Dupre 72 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Quatre Parish Co. v. Beauregard Parish School Board 57 So. 2d 197 La. 1952
City of New Orleans v. Joseph Rathborne Land Co. 24 So. 2d 275 La. 1945
Plaquemines Oil & Development Co. v. State 23 So. 2d 171 La. 1945
W. B. Thompson & Co. v. McNair 7 So. 2d 184 La. 1942
Snelling v. Adair 199 So. 782 La. 1940
Long v. Chailan 175 So. 42 La. 1937
In this connection, , 56 So.
Owens v. Owens 135 So. 87 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1931
850 , ; Adams v. Drews, 110 La.
Reitzell v. Louisiana Cent. Lumber Co. 125 So. 307 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1929
Craig's Heirs v. Frost Lumber Industries, Inc. 120 So. 709 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1929
796 ; Bender vs. Chew, , 56 So.
Ball v. Price 121 So. 752 La. 1929
Under the Oivil Code and jurisprudence of this state notice is not equivalent to registry.” We do not consider it necessary to review the authorities relied upon by plaintiffs’ counsel, but will cite the following: , 56 So.
Lee v. Long 118 So. 320 La. 1928
Cross v. Bernstein 8 La. App. 380 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1928
“A specific or particular description in a deed is not controlled by a general description, stating that the land specifically described is the same land as was acquired by a patent to the vendor, as the latter description is not sufficient to put third persons on notice of just what land has been conveyed.” Bender vs. Chew, .
Myers v. Dawson 104 So. 704 La. 1925
850 , ; Adams v. Drews, 110 La.
Liverman v. Hungerbeeler 100 So. 425 La. 1924
Nilson v. Brinkerhoff 83 So. 902 La. 1919
Haas v. Fontenot 61 So. 831 La. 1913