Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Delouche v. Rosenthal, 78 So. 970.
- Tupper v. CATL Operating Co. 580 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
- Nason v. Louisiana Dept. of Employment SEC. 475 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
- Bd. of Com'rs. Etc. v. Hunter Foundation 354 So. 2d 156 La. 1977
-
Bruce v. Cheramie
93 So. 2d 202
La. 1956
What is meant by deed valid in form, or prima facie translative of property, is one that has no defect apparent upon its face.’ , 78 So.
- Martin v. Schwing Lumber & Shingle Co. 81 So. 2d 852 La. 1955
- Douglas v. Murphy 51 So. 2d 310 La. 1950
- Smith v. Southern Kraft Corporation 13 So. 2d 335 La. 1943
- Brown v. Johnson 11 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
- Franz v. Mohr 4 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
-
Keller v. Summers
187 So. 69
La. 1939
What is meant by deed valid in form, or prima facie translative of property, is one that has no defect apparent upon its face.” , 78 So.
-
Peters v. Crawford
185 So. 716
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
464 , in which the Court held: “Nor is a vendee to be held a possessor in bad faith merely because of the fact, or the probability, that a careful examination of the conveyance records would have disclosed the nullity of the vendor’s title.” , 78 So.
-
Land Development Co. v. Schulz
124 So. 125
La. 1929
586 , , thus: “Article 3451 of the Civil Code defines the ‘possessor in good faith’ as one who has just reason to believe he is the owner of the property he possesses, although he may not be in fact, and gives the illustration of one who buys property that he supposes belongs to the seller although in fact it belongs t
-
Edmiston v. Tulane Investment Co.
119 So. 75
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
587 , ; 2 H. D. 1198 (c); Stanbrough vs. Wilson, 13 La.