Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Doyle v. Fuerst & Kraemer, Ltd., 56 So. 906.
-
Louisiana Iron & Supply Co. v. Galloway
6 La. App. 218
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
ine, which became necessary by reason of the defects in the pipe, basing his position on Article 2545 of the Civil Code, which reads as follows: “The seller who knows the vice of the ¡thing he sells and omits to declare it, besides the restitution of the price and repayment of the expenses, is answerable to the buyer in damages.” And upon the illustrations cited on Doyle vs. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 South.
-
Silk v. Crosset Shoe Shop
6 La. App. 42
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
In the case of Doyle vs. Fuerst & Kraemer, , 56 South.