Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Stringfellow v. Nowlin Bros., 102 So. 869.

25 citing documents.

Greene v. Greene 398 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
4th Cir. 1966) , 102 So.
Mexic Bros., Inc. v. Sauviac 191 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
MONROE" 66" OIL COMPANY v. Hightower 180 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
DeLaughter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 151 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Navarre v. Adams 124 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
ed. This case presents purely a question of fact, although counsel for the plaintiff argued that it also involved the question of law, which he contended the lower court had disregarded in deciding the case, viz.,, that a defendant who sets up a reconven-tional demand, has the burden of proof and must sustain it by a preponderance of' the evidence, , 102 So.
Lewis Chevrolet Co. v. Whitener 122 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Pillsbury Mills, Inc. v. Chehardy 90 So. 2d 797 La. 1956
Natchez Pecan Shelling Co. v. Chas. P. Wagner & Bro. 70 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Harding v. Wattigney 62 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
C. W. Greeson Co. v. Harnischfeger Corp. 54 So. 2d 528 La. 1951
Stringfellow v. Nowlin Brothers et al.,' , 102 So.
Myers v. Maricelli 50 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Hardy-Harris Ins. Agency v. Louisiana Ice Co. 49 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Pancoast v. Cooperative Cab Co. 37 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1948
Barbara, Inc. v. Billelo 33 So. 2d 689 La. 1947
1210 ; Davis v. Young, supra; , 102 So.
Senseley v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co. 16 So. 2d 906 La. 1944
Rives v. Starcke 196 So. 657 La. 1940
Blanchard v. Donaldsonville Motors Co. 176 So. 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
The latter demand enjoyed the status of an independent suit and was as distinct a cause of action as if it had been filed in a separate proceeding (see Stringfellow v. Nowlin Bros, et al., , 102 So.
Adams v. Ross Amusement Co. 158 So. 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Chagnard v. Schiro 156 So. 58 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
tion in question reads as follows: “And now taking the position of plaintiff in reconvention, your respondent prays for the dissolution of the lease on the ground that there were inherent defects and vices in the construction of the building which rendered it dangerous to tenants and visitors and unfit for the use he had intended to make of it.” , 102 So.
Woodward-Wight & Co. v. Haas 149 So. 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
683, , as follows: “Position of one instituting a reconventional demand becomes that of plaintiff so that, although demand be inserted in answer, it is not considered as a part thereof but as a petition setting forth a distinct cause of action.
Robert v. Blythe Co. 145 So. 15 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1933
Donohoe Oil & Gas Co. v. MacK-jourden Co. 144 So. 169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Crichton v. Louisiana Highway Commission 136 So. 43 La. 1931
Ann. 582 ; Stringfellow v. Nowlin Bros, et al., , 102 So.
Di Franco v. Ascani 127 So. 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
In the case of Stringfellow vs. Nowlin Bros., , 102 So.
Adams v. Bell Motors, Inc. 121 So. 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Ann. 860 , and Stringfellow vs. Nowlin Bros., , 102 So.