DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Horton v. Haralson, 57 So. 643.

15 citing documents.

  • W.H. Ward Lumber Co. v. Tomeny Construction Co. 470 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    In the case of Horton v. Haralson, et al, , 57 So.
  • Reilly-Benton Co. v. Milan Engineering Co. 219 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Ferd. Marks Insurance Agency v. Thibodeaux 192 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    It was not necessary to prove the actual delivery of each item of the different accounts as that is impossible * * * ” ( , 57 So.
  • R. O. Roy & Co. v. Norman 126 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    376 ; Horton v. Haralson, 1912, , 57 So.
  • National Supply Co. v. Baillio 99 So. 2d 103 La. 1958
    relative to movable property, and all contracts for the payment of money, where the value does not exceed five hundred dollars, which are not.reduced to writing, may be proved by any other competent evidence; such contracts or agreements, above five hundred dollars in value, must be proved at least by one credible witness, and other corroborating circumstances.” , 57 So.
  • Harnischfeger Corp. v. C. W. Greeson & Co. 59 So. 2d 113 La. 1952
  • Tate v. Bridges 57 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    62, 63 , our Supreme Court held, , 57 So.
  • Succession of Sterkx v. Sterkx 190 So. 568 La. 1939
  • Frierson Co. v. Murray 190 So. 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    He attests the correctness of the account in these words: “Yes, it is correct in so far as our record is concerned, we have checked it and find it is correct, we keep a double entry set of books and it balanced.” When asked regarding defendant’s ques *134 tioning of the indebtedness, he stated: “I know of no time when he disputed the account.” , 57 So.
  • Ritchie Grocer Co. v. Dean 162 So. 62 La. 1935
  • Monroe Grocer Co. v. Barron 134 So. 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
  • Lone Star Gas Co. v. Winnfield Bottling Works 120 So. 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    om original sales slips, and that defendant had not denied the correctness of the account, his ineffectual attempt to show payment relieved plaintiff of the necessity of showing that each item charged had been delivered, and the bookkeeper of plaintiff having testified that defendant admitted the correctness of the account, the evidence was sufficient to warrant the judgment (Horton vs. Haralson, , 57 So.
  • Holmes Co. v. Hiller 7 La. App. 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    In the case of Horton vs. Haralson, , 57 So.
  • W. W. Page & Son v. Russell 7 La. App. 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
    Horton vs. Harrelson, , 57 South.
  • Victory Oil Co. v. Von Schlemmer 7 La. App. 289 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1927
    In Horton vs. Haratson, , 57 South.