Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Campbell v. Richmond Ins., 100 So. 679.
- 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
al 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 said property; unless it clearly appear that the parties contem *41 plated that the new deed should be only a confirmation of the first, and not indispensable for the transfer of title.” , 100 So.
- Ober v. Williams 35 So. 2d 219 La. 1948
- Rayford v. &198tna Ins. Co. 193 So. 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
- Brough v. Presidential Fire Marine Ins. Co. 181 So. 432 La. 1938
- Brough v. Presidential Fire Marine Ins. Co. 176 So. 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
- Kendall v. Kendall 140 So. 6 La. 1932
-
Succession of Premeaux
135 So. 680
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
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 said property; unless it clearly appear that the parties contemplated that the new deed should be only *363 a confirmation of the first, and not indispensable for the transfer of title.’ “See, also, , 100 .So.
- Davis v. McCain 132 So. 758 La. 1931
- Mortallaro v. Hartford Fire Ins. 121 So. 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
- Succession of Fay 109 So. 824 La. 1926
-
Pruyn v. Gay
106 So. 536
La. 1925
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 said property; unless it clearly appear that the parties contemplated that the new deed should be only a confirmation of the first, and not indispensable for the transfer of title.” See, also, , 100 So.
-
Pruyn v. Gay
2 La. App. 787
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
In the case of S. J. Campbell vs. Richmond Insurance Company, , 100 South.