Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Tircuit v. Burton-Swartz Cypress Co., 110 So. 489.

24 citing documents.

Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. v. I.P. Petroleum Co. 144 So. 3d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
The description need not be given with such particularity as to make resort to extrinsic evidence unnecessary.” , 110 So.
Voelkel v. Harrison 572 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Wood v. Morvant 321 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Harvey v. Havard 287 So. 2d 780 La. 1973
Carter v. Moore 248 So. 2d 813 La. 1971
Placid Oil Co. v. Young 246 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
The description need not be given with such particularity as to make a resort to extrinsic evidence unnecessary.” ’ , 110 So.
White v. Phillips Petroleum Company 232 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
The description need not be given with such particularity as to make a resort to extrinsic evidence unnecessary."' , 110 So.
Clark v. Lee 221 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Deeds § 30, p. 640; , 110 So.
Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Knapp 156 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
Chauvin v. LeBlanc 148 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Loeblich v. Garnier 113 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Canterberry v. Slade Brothers 96 So. 2d 4 La. 1957
State v. Palmer 94 So. 2d 439 La. 1957
310 , ]: “However, as we have seen, the statements in this instance were not offered as substantive evidence, but merely as impeaching evidence, and the jury were so instructed by the court.
Bruce v. Cheramie 93 So. 2d 202 La. 1956
Wyatt Lumber Co. v. Arnold 85 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
In Tircuit v. Burton-Swartz Cypress Company, 1926, -334, 110 So.
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Marks 74 So. 2d 36 La. 1954
Wolfson v. Succession of Lisso 6 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1942
Snelling v. Adair 199 So. 782 La. 1940
Pope v. Daniel 195 So. 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Harrill v. Pitts 193 So. 562 La. 1940
Error in the range has time.and again been held immaterial where by the other parts of the description, and even by competent proof aliunde, the land was identified.” , 110 So.
Calamia v. Mayer 174 So. 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
785 and also a case which they cite therein, , 110 So.
H. J. Smith & Sons v. Joiner 172 So. 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
It was said that that article had “reference only to the judicial confession made in the suit itself.” The decision also contained another broad statement that “allegations of law unsuccessfully made in a former suit do not estop” and in this connection it is significant to note that in a later case, , 110 So.
White v. Ouachita Natural Gas Co. 150 So. 15 La. 1933
The description need not be given with such particularity as to make a resort to extrinsic evidence unnecessary.’ ” , 110 So.
Triche v. Brownell-Drews Lumber Co. 141 So. 44 La. 1932