Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Harman v. Legrande, 91 So. 726.

20 citing documents.

Flowers, Inc. v. Rausch 354 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
85 ; and Harman & , 91 So.
Jones v. Butler 346 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Roper v. Newman 344 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
T. E. Mixon Lumber Co. v. Boutte 191 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
App. 2 Cir., 1934); Harman & , 91 So.
Hattiesburg Manufacturing Co. v. Pepe 140 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
M. H. Nahigian, Inc. v. Haddad 18 So. 2d 598 La. 1944
Counsel'for the plaintiff relies upon the case of Harman & , 91 So.
First Nat. Bank v. Broussard 11 So. 2d 602 La. 1942
[216], 222.” Harman & , 91 So.
Madison Lumber Co. v. Helm 8 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
First Nat. Bank of Abbeville v. Broussard 5 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
State Ex. Rel. Pickett v. Bullock 2 So. 2d 209 La. 1941
253, ) but that where the rights of third parties are affected, the re-inscription after the ten-year period takes rank only from the date of its réinscription (Executors of Liddell v. Rucker, 13 La.
Schutzman v. Dobrowolski 186 So. 338 La. 1939
This construction was placed on this article of the Code in Harman & , 91 So.
State Ex Rel. Landry v. Broussard 177 So. 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
White Bros. Co. v. Shinn 160 So. 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
694 ; Harman & , 91 So.
City of Shreveport v. Urban Land Co. 159 So. 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Commercial Nat. Bank of Shreveport v. McDaniel 156 So. 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
This construction was placed on this article of the Code in Harman & , 91 So.
Becker v. Hollywood Theatre 155 So. 522 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1934
254 , .” In affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court said ( 160 La.
Milam's Spot Cash Wholesale House v. Nomey 154 So. 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Civil Code, art 2166; Harman & , 91 So.
Electrical Supply Co. v. Eugene Freeman, Inc. 152 So. 510 La. 1933
W. J. & C. Sherrouse, Ltd. v. Phenix 128 So. 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
ngs, but the proof that the consideration of the note was a balance due on open account, while it shows that plaintiff had a right of action against defendant on an account which could have been made the basis of a suit, and indicates that in such action,, as suggested by counsel, the note may have: been used to show a written acknowledgment of the account (Harman & , 91 So.
Kimball v. Young 8 La. App. 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
While there has been conflict of opinion as to the prescription where evidence is offered showing a written acknowledgment of an account, we think that the question is settled in Harman vs. Stringfellow, , 91 So.