Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Trichel v. Home Ins., 99 So. 403.

28 citing documents.

Montz v. Theard 818 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
McCall v. McCall 651 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Bounds v. Makar 493 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Gibsland Supply Co. v. American Employers Ins. Co. 242 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1971
St. Landry Loan Company v. Etienne 227 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
Bornemann v. Richards 161 So. 2d 741 La. 1964
Chicago Mill and Lumber Co. v. Ayer Timber Co. 131 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Scott v. Apgar 113 So. 2d 457 La. 1959
Dixon v. Zemurray 82 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
Stephens v. Bulkley 41 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
The Davis opinion contains the following quotation, with approval, , 99 So.
Ober v. Williams 35 So. 2d 219 La. 1948
Peterson v. Moresi 186 So. 737 La. 1939
Brough v. Presidential Fire Marine Ins. Co. 176 So. 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Willis v. Hamilton 168 So. 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Any subsequent deed between them, , 99 So.
Kendall v. Kendall 140 So. 6 La. 1932
462 , ; Campbell v. Richmond Ins.
Succession of Premeaux 135 So. 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Davis v. McCain 132 So. 758 La. 1931
Dover v. Atlas Assurance Co. 130 So. 828 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
234 , the Supreme Court of California said: .“There is not a change of possession [or forfeiture, of policy] * * * where one, given an option to purchase, is given right of possession for experimental purposes, subject to free access and management of the owner.” , 99 So.
Byrd v. Cooper 117 So. 441 La. 1928
The reason is that “in the case of sale of real estate, neither consent nor delivery nor payment of price is sufficient to transfer the ownership; out there must be a deed translative of the title.” , 99 So.
Blade v. Young 8 La. App. 591 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1928
796 ; in which it was held that the agreement did not evidence a complete sale; and in Trichel vs. Home Insurance Co., , 99 South.
Codifer v. Holdsworth 7 La. App. 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
See Trichel vs. Home Insurance Company, , 99 So.
Cusachs v. Columbia National Fire Insurance 6 La. App. 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Succession of Fay 109 So. 824 La. 1926
Southport Mill, Ltd. v. Ansley 106 So. 720 La. 1925
Pruyn v. Gay 106 So. 536 La. 1925
462 , The court also said in the Triehel Case: “Our conclusion is that any ’ agreement for the sale of real estate, which is not intended to be the final writing between the parties, but, on the contrary, to be followed by another and final deed, is a mere promise of sale, and not a sale, and does not transfer the title to
Pruyn v. Gay 2 La. App. 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
763 ; J. C. Trichol vs. Home *789 Insurance N., , 99 South.
Campbell v. Richmond Ins. 100 So. 679 La. 1924
Cavell v. Trichell 100 So. 249 La. 1924