Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co., 71 So. 598.
-
Succession of Kretzer
170 So. 906
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
We find that the earlier jurisprudence in Louisiana has varied in its application of the maxim “Contra non valentem.” The leading case on the subject is that of Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co., , 71 So.
-
Perrin v. Rodriguez
153 So. 555
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Company et al., , 71 So.
-
Girod v. Barbe
153 So. 326
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
page 411, , where the court delivered añ elaborate opinion on the causes which effect a suspension of prescription, it said in the syllabus, that one “who by some act succeeds in concealing from a creditor his cause of action cannot be allowed to reap the benefit of his own wrong.” After citing a number of decisions of this sta
-
Kidd Ex Rel. Kidd v. Terrel
145 So. 23
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Our courts have' frequently announced this doctrine, and in the case of Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Company et al., , 71 So.
-
A. Baldwin Sales Co. v. Mitchell
142 So. 700
La. 1932
719 ; Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co., , 71 So.
-
Plauche-Locke Securities, Inc. v. Securities Sales Co.
125 So. 729
La. 1929
Our opinion is that the case is controlled by the principle announced in Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co., , 71 So.
-
Bernstein v. Commercial Nat. Bank
108 So. 117
La. 1926
See Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co., , 139 La.
-
Franz v. A. Levitan Furniture Co.
7 Pelt. 411
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1923
The case referred to is Hyman vs. Hibernia Bank & Trust Company, -14: "If by the unlawful act of two defendants the plaintiff has bpen deprived of a right which he had, and thereby has sustained a loss, the defendants are bound to repair it.
- Duke v. Crawford, Jenkins & Booth 91 So. 440 La. 1922
-
Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co.
81 So. 718
La. 1919
Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Company et al., , 71 South.