DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Grand Lodge, Benevolent Knights of America v. Murphy Const. Co., 92 So. 757.

22 citing documents.

  • Caldwell Wholesale Co. v. Central Oil & Supply Corp. 761 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • WHITNEY NATIONAL BANK OF NEW ORLEANS v. DERBES 436 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Whitney Nat. Bank of New Orleans v. Derbes 436 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • Marks v. Deutsch Construction Co. 258 So. 2d 676 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    An exception results, however, where the creditor had knowledge of the source of funds and an imputation is made in agreement with the debtor which would constitute a fraud on a surety for the debt- or, Grand Lodge, , 92 So.
  • Duffy v. Roman 209 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
    Madison Lumber Co. v. Helm, supra; Grand Lodge, , 92 So.
  • Lennox Industries, Inc. v. Pitcher Co. 209 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
    1061 , ; Grand Lodge, , 92 So.
  • Maxwell Hardware & Lumber Co. v. Mercer 201 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    The exception to the general rule as to the right to make imputation of payments was clearly set forth by the Supreme Court in Grand Lodge, Benevolent Knights of *663 , 92 So.
  • Hayes v. Russell & Hazel Builders, Inc. 179 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    For instance, it was stated in Grand Lodge, , 92 So.
  • Baudoin v. Gallier 153 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    In Grand Lodge, , 92 So.
  • Madison Lumber Co. v. Helm 13 So. 2d 349 La. 1943
    But “that rule may be subject to some exception, as where the payment, to the knowledge of the creditor, is derived from a source such that it would be a fraud for the creditor to consent with the debtor that the money be diverted and applied otherwise than as the debtor had expressly or impliedly agreed with his sureties.” Grand Lodge, , 92 So.
  • Madison Lumber Co. v. Helm 8 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
  • Madison Lumber Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co. 161 So. 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    515, 517 , in which the Supreme Court held that “the imputation of payment made by the creditor with the express or tacit consent of the debtor is the same as an imputation of payment by the debtor himself,” and in which the Supreme Court cited with approval two other cases, to wit, Grand Lodge, etc.,- v. Murphy Construction Co., , 92 So.
  • N. O. Nelson Mfg. Co. v. Wilkerson 152 So. 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
    In these circumstances, though the imputations operated to the prejudice of defendant, they cannot be disturbed.” Citing Grand Lodge, , 92 So.
  • Brinson v. Guyon 150 So. 866 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
  • Electrical Supply Co. v. Eugene Freeman, Inc. 152 So. 510 La. 1933
  • George E. Breece Lumber Co. v. Morris 141 So. 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
  • Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 137 So. 381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
  • Hortman-Salmen Co. v. Continental Casualty Co. 129 So. 515 La. 1930
  • Hortman-Salmen Co. v. Naquin 126 So. 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
    Knights of America vs. Murphy Construction Co., , 92 So.
  • Madison Lumber Co. v. Bachemin 120 So. 508 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    aid in Jordy Bros. vs. Judlin, 9 Orleans App. 43: “The ruling in Roca vs. Caruso, 7 Court of Appeal 451, is not to be extended beyond those cases where the furnisher of materials knows the origin of the funds paid to him by the contractor and has received no instructions to impute the payment to any particular account.” In Grand Lodge Benevolent Knights of America vs. Murphy Construction Company, , 92 So.
  • WM. B. Thompson & Co. v. Sporl 107 So. 135 La. 1926
    As to the manner in which the credits have been imputed by Thompson & Co., the creditor, with the tacit (and even express) consent of Sporl, the debtor, we said in Grand Lodge, etc., v. Murphy Const. Co., , 92 So.
  • Everett v. Graye 3 La. App. 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    This question of imputation of payments under similar circumstances to those in this case was passed upon by the Supreme Court of this state in the case of Grand Lodge, etc., vs. Murphy Construction Co., , 92 South.