Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Watson v. Feibel, 71 So. 585.

22 citing documents.

Seals v. Sumrall 887 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Arteck Services, Inc. v. Crown Point Industries, Inc. 473 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Southwood Development Corp. v. Thomas Supply, Inc. 469 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
White v. Crook 426 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
720 *337 (1925); , 71 So.
Poissenot v. Guildcraft Homes, Inc. 394 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Thompson v. Bullock 236 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
Logan v. Blaxton 71 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
This view is in accord with that which we have expressed before in the following cases: , 71 So.
Standard Oil Co. v. Collector of Revenue 27 So. 2d 268 La. 1946
Bailey v. Wadley 185 So. 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
The right of a defaulting purchaser to perform by paying the price after process has been served on him in a , 71 So.
Temple v. Lindsay 161 So. 8 La. 1935
This view is in accord with that which we have expressed 'before in the following eases: , 71 So.
Landry v. Hawkins 156 So. 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Edwards v. Standard Oil Co. 141 So. 513 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
The provision that, when the resolutory condition is an event not depending on the will of either party, the contract is dissolved of right, but in other cases it must be sued for, and the party, in default, may, according to circumstances, have a further time allowed for the performance of the condition, , 71 So.
French v. Zbornitzy 123 So. 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
It is quite true that the Supreme Court of Louisiana said, in Watson vs. Feibel, , 71 So.
Wright v. Derbes 122 So. 57 La. 1929
Under these circumstances, and because time of performance was not the essence of the contract between the parties, , 71 So.
Loyacano v. Villere & Burglass 6 La. App. 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
75 , and Watson vs. Feitel, , 71 So.
State Ex Rel. Bond v. Register of Conveyances 110 So. 559 La. 1926
Southport Mill, Ltd. v. Ansley 106 So. 720 La. 1925
Burglass v. J. C. Healy Co. 105 So. 384 La. 1925
Article 1911, C. C.; , 71 So.
Baton Rouge Investment & Realty Co. v. Bailey 103 So. 184 La. 1925
376 , , to the effect that a sale wfill not be rescinded on the ground of noncompliance with its conditions, when full performance is tendered in • answer to the suit, can have no application in this case, for the reason that the defendant was not in a position, even when the case was tried, to make plaintiff a clear title.
Hemsing v. Wiener-Loeb Grocery Co. 102 So. 303 La. 1924
Liquidators of Nicholson Pub. Co. v. E. S. Upton Printing Co. 93 So. 91 La. 1922
Gallaspy v. A. J. Ingersoll & Co. 84 So. 510 La. 1920
* * * We there find that putting in default means nothing more, and has no other function than as has been just stated,” , 71 South.