Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Shreveport Mut. Bldg. Ass'n v. Whittington, 74 So. 591.

16 citing documents.

Reily Bros., Inc. v. Dicon, Inc. 354 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Shreveport Mutual Building Ass’n v. Whittington, , 74 So.
Electrical Supply Co. v. Eugene Freeman, Inc. 152 So. 510 La. 1933
Building Ass’n v. Whittington, , 74 So.
Calatex Oil & Gas Co. v. Smith 144 So. 243 La. 1932
Hortman-Salmen Co. v. Raymond 127 So. 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
page 41, , Mr. Justice Provosty, as the organ of the court in the opinion rendered on rehearing, said: “The mistake which the learned counsel for the surety company make is in not dis *493 tinguishing between the owner, between whom and the materialman there is no contractual relation, on whose part there is no liability
Clifford F. Favrot Supply Co. v. Bachemin & United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 120 So. 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Assn. vs. Whittington, , 74 So.
R. T. Pender, Inc. v. Van Holten 120 So. 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Assn. vs. Whittington, , 74 So.
Madison Lumber Co. v. Bachemin 118 So. 141 La. 1928
Haynesville Lumber Co. v. Casey 116 So. 559 La. 1928
Thibodeaux & Harison v. Globe Indemnity 6 La. App. 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Assn. vs. Whittington ( , 74 South.
Meriwether Supply Co. v. Baugh 6 La. App. 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
The act provides that “In all cases where surety has been furnished, the surety shall be entitled *736 to make ’ only the same defenses that the contractor for whom he signed the bond is authorized to make.” In the case of Shreveport Mutual Building & Loan Association vs. Whittington, , 74 South.
Clarke Co. v. Petivan 5 La. App. 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
In the case of Shreveport vs. Whittington, , 74 South.
Joubert v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 3 La. App. 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
See Shreveport Mutual Building Assn. vs. Whittington, , 74 South.
Fidelity Homestead Ass'n v. Kennedy & Anderson 105 So. 64 La. 1925
Audubon Homestead Ass'n v. A. Stef Lumber Co. 105 So. 62 La. 1925
Panama Sash & Door Co. v. Delisle 2 La. App. 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1923
219 , so confidently relied upon by defendant, and no matter how close the analogy between Act 134 of 1906, the controlling statute when these cases were decided, and Act 262 of 1916, which we are presently considering it is impossible to escape the effect of the later jurisprudence beginning with Shreveport Mutual Building Association vs. Whittington, , 74 South.
Overruled Walker v. Claassen 2 Pelt. 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1918