Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Mente & Co. v. Levy, 107 So. 318.

16 citing documents.

Lasalle State Bank v. Nugent 508 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
573 ], Mente & Co. v. Levy [ ], 107 So.
Bourg v. Wiley 398 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
573 , (1972); Mente & Co., v. Levy, , 107 So.
Franklin v. BRIDGES LOAN & INVESTMENT CO., INC. 371 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
111 , (1961); Mente & , 107 So.
Thrift Funds Canal, Inc. v. Foy 260 So. 2d 628 La. 1972
111 , (1961); Mente & , 107 So.
Baton Rouge Wood Products, Inc. v. Ezell 194 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Halliburton Co. v. Snowden 186 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
In Mente & , 107 So.
Scallan v. Simmesport State Bank 129 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
In the case of Mente & Co., , 107 So.
Lacoste v. Hickey 14 So. 2d 639 La. 1943
Lacoste v. Hickey 14 So. 2d 639 La. 1943
Motor Finance Co. v. Universal Motors, Inc. 182 So. 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Civil Code, Article 3285; Mente & Co., Inc., v. Levy, , 107 So.
Lampton Reid & Co. v. Fortenberry 168 So. 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
In the cited case, however, it is noted that the jurisprudence is equally well settled that “when the mortgage is not for a specific debt, but for future use, and hence in favor of any future holder, the use of the note as a collateral, and its return to the maker, will not cancel the mortgage in the event of the reissue of the note.” This case is cited with approval in Mente & , 107 So.
Terral v. Jones 161 So. 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
745 ; Mente & , 107 So.
Hammond State Bank & Trust Co. v. Broderick 154 So. 739 La. 1934
We find nothing contrary to this view in the cases of Mente & , 107 So.
Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Amrhein 121 So. 602 La. 1929
129 ; Mente & , 107 So.
Avant v. Hodge 6 La. App. 290 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
reissued by the maker and used as collateral and the accessory right of mortgage preserved intact; but— “the rule is well settled, at least in the jurisprudence of this state, that when a mortgage note is given for a specific debt to a particular creditor, payment qf the debt extinguishes the mortgage and a reissue of the note will not revive or reinstate the mortgage.” Mente & Co. vs. Levy, , 107 South.
Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Loranger 113 So. 129 La. 1927
See, also, Mente & , 107 So.