Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, 102 So. 325.

18 citing documents.

TeleRecovery of Louisiana, Inc. v. Gaulon 738 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
McCrary v. Succession of Bridges 259 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
552 (1876); Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, , 102 So.
First National Bank of Lafayette v. Romero 150 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Rex Finance Company v. Cary 145 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
519, 521 ; Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, , 102 So.
Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Adamson 194 So. 139 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1938
The court in Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, ; 102 So.
Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Miller 172 So. 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
“The true test in every case is, does the instrument carry the general personal credit of the drawer or the maker, or only the credit of a particular fund, and this question 'must be determined according to the • circumstances of each case unless the language of the instrument itself puts its meaning beyond' doubt.” See, also, Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, , 102 So.
Newman v. Schwarz 156 So. 206 La. 1934
In Tyler v. Whitney Central Trust & Savings Bank, , 102 So.
Calhoun v. David Burk Co. 153 So. 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
See, also, Brannan’s N. I. L., Verbo “Rights of the Holder,” pp. 515, 516; , 102 So.
Newman v. Schwarz 153 So. 362 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1934
Ann. 559 .” Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, , 102 So.
Eureka Homestead Soc. v. Newman 143 So. 38 La. 1932
On the question of negotiability of the rent notes, the attorneys on both sides cite and rely upon the decision in Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, , 102 So.
Baldwin Realty Co. v. Interstate Trust & Banking Co. 135 So. 228 La. 1931
Some of the'members of the court, however, are of the opinion that the clause quoted from the last paragraph of the note made it a conditional promise to pay, and therefore destroyed its negotiability; while other members of the court are of the opinion that, under the ruling in Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, , 102 So.
Holmes v. Falsho Realty Co. 132 So. 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
To constitute notice of an infirmity in the instrument or' defect in the title of the person negotiating the same, the person to whom it is negotiated must have had actual knowledge of the infirmity or defect, or knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the instrument amounted to bad faith.” In interpreting these sections, the Supreme Court of this state, in Tyler v. *588 Whitney Bank, , 102 So.
Exchange Natl. Bank v. Howard-Kenyon Dredging Co. 130 So. 848 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
The notation, as stated, was separate and distinct from the rest of the note, and did not modify the unconditional promise to pay as shown in the body of the note and render the note non-negotiable (Tyler v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, , 102 So.
Mitchell v. Holomon 120 So. 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
706 ; Tyler vs. Whitney-Central T. & S. Bank, , 102 So.
Harries v. Courcier 119 So. 905 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
513 , 38 A. L. R. 347; Tyler vs. Whitney-Central Trust and Savings Bank, , 102 So.
Seymour & Co v. Artz 5 La. App. 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
166 ; Tyler vs. Bank, , 102 So.
Ouachita Nat. Bank v. Carpenter 107 So. 896 La. 1926
Section 3 of Act 64 of 1904 (Negotiable Instrument Law); , 157 La.
First State Bank & Trust Co. v. Crain 102 So. 513 La. 1924
Bank (our No. 26255) , 102 So.