DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Youree v. Limerick, 101 So. 864.

27 citing documents.

  • Ogden v. Barby Joint Venture 525 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • LeGardeur International, Inc. v. Ascension Construction Corp. 504 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Domengeaux v. Daniels 401 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Acadiana Bank v. Foreman 352 So. 2d 674 La. 1977
  • Acadiana Bank v. Foreman 343 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Morrison v. Faulk 158 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
  • Universal CIT Credit Corporation v. Parker 117 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    *662 The rule is uniform that the lessor's statutory lien attaches to chattels as soon as they are brought on the leased premises and that said lien is in no wise dependent upon the maturity of the rent, Youree v. Limerick (Papas, Intervenor), , 101 So.
  • United Credit Co. v. Croswell Co. 54 So. 2d 425 La. 1951
  • McGuffin v. Barkett 44 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    The relative rank of a lessor’s lien and a recorded chattel mortgage covering property located in the leased premises is discussed in the following cases: , 101 So.
  • Easterling v. Brooks 28 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
  • Central Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Oilfield Supply & Scrap Material Co. 12 So. 2d 819 La. 1943
  • Maroun v. Marrs 178 So. 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
    Youree et al. v. Limerick, Papas, Intervenor, , 101 So.
  • Union Bldg. Corporation v. Burmeister 173 So. 752 La. 1937
  • Bonura v. Friedrich 168 So. 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    However, the chattel mortgage was not recorded until after the ice box and counter had been delivered upon the leased premises, it being conceded here that under the provisions of the chattel mortgage law (section 4 of Act No. 198 of 1918) and under the jurisprudence ( , 101 So.
  • Spremich v. Somerfield 166 So. 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
    756 , the court said: “ , 101 So.
  • Burglass v. Wright 159 So. 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
    The lien dates from the filing of the act of mortgage, and the rank of such lien relates to the future.” , 101 So.
  • White Co. v. Hammond Stage Lines 158 So. 353 La. 1934
  • Thigpen v. Wall Printing Corporation 145 So. 714 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
  • Kidd Ex Rel. Kidd v. Terrel 145 So. 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    n 4 of Act No. 198 of 1918 (Chattel Mortgage Law) reads, “that every mortgage shall be a lien on the property mortgaged from the time same is filed for recordation, which filing shall be notice to all parties of the existence of such mortgage and said lien shall be superior in rank to any privilege or lien arising subsequently thereto.” In the case of Youree et al. v. Limerick (Papas, Intervener) , 101 So.
  • Bank of Winnfield v. Olla State Bank 124 So. 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    549 ; Youree et al. vs. Limerick, , 101 So.
  • Hardie v. Wright 125 So. 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
    949 ; Youree vs. Limerick, , 101 So.
  • Williams v. Federal Machine Shop 8 La. App. 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
    achine & Foundry Company, Inc., had been there continuously since the first lease “and up to the time of the sale recently by the Sheriff.” The trial Judge, after finding that the chattel mortgage was recorded September 14, 1922, and that the lease to the defendants ran from October 1, 1922, to September 30, 1923, based his judgment on the decision of the Supreme Court in Youree vs. Limerick, .
  • Comegys v. Shreveport Kandy Kitchen 110 So. 104 La. 1926
    In the case of Youree v. Limerick (Papas, Intervener) , 101 So.
  • Comegys v. Shreveport Kandy Kitchen 3 La. App. 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
    —, (39), , dated January 3, 1925.” There can be no dissent from the proposition of law thus stated, for the jurisprudence on that point is settled.
  • Bernhardt v. Sandel 3 La. App. 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    That case has since been decided and is reported in Youree vs. Limerick, , 101 South.
  • Murov v. Meyer 2 La. App. 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    Under the authority of the case of Youree vs. Limerick, , 101 South.
  • Bernhardt v. Sandel 4 La. App. 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1923
    “That other seized property sold for $75.00, upon which G. E. IJcGraw makes no claim.” There had been a conflict of jurisprudence between this court and that for the First Circuit of this state, until the Supreme Court decided, on writ of review to this court, the recent case of Youree, et al., vs. Limerick, et al., , 101 So.