Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Grapico Bottling Works v. Liquid Carbonic Co., 113 So. 454.

15 citing documents.

Pastorek v. Lanier Systems Company 249 So. 2d 224 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
Lee Const. Co. v. L. M. Ray Const. Corp. 52 So. 2d 841 La. 1951
Matthews v. Gaubler 49 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Webb v. Martin 47 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Grapico Bot *130 , 113 So.
Liberty Farms, Inc. v. Miller 45 So. 2d 610 La. 1950
Bankston v. Loranger Milk Plant, Inc. 17 So. 2d 332 La. 1944
Thomas v. Philip Werlein, Limited 158 So. 635 La. 1935
Bacher v. Higgins 156 So. 826 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1934
As we view the pleadings, this is a suit on an open account, and the alleged overpayment, having grown out of the open account, was incidental to the main demand; therefore, the reeonventional demand can be considered under defendant’s answer to the appeal.” , 113 So.
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Pine Tree Amusement Co. 156 So. 812 La. 1934
In the following cases contracts of a rather similar nature were construed as sales and the titles to the property described in the contract- was held to vest in the purchaser who was termed a lessee in the contract: , 113 So.
Claude Neon Federal Co. of Shreveport v. Angell 153 So. 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Harry B. Loeb Piano Co. v. Kessler 140 So. 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Dickens v. Singer Sewing Mach. Co. 140 So. 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
John J. Meier & Co. v. Schmidt & Ziegler, Ltd. 125 So. 191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
1058 -1063, , the court said: “On the other hand, while there was considerable delay in making delivery, according to the contract as modified, yet, when delivery was not made in April, to which time it had been advanced, plaintiff did not seek to cancel the contract, but, to the contrary, still desired it to be performed, a
Byrd v. Cooper 117 So. 441 La. 1928
Graham Glass Co. v. Nu Grape Bottling Co. 115 So. 285 La. 1927