Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., 115 So. 366.

29 citing documents.

Moore v. Shell Oil Company 228 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
59 , (absolute nullity of form, apparent on face); Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Muff v. Algermissen 198 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Furthermore on the question of reasonable time, we quote the following from Doiron et al. v. Lock, Moore & Co., Ltd., et al., 1928, , 115 So.
Gaudet v. Lawes 197 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
See Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co. (1927) , 115 So.
Succession of Caldwell 147 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
721 ; Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Thompson v. Bradley 142 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
In the later case of Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
British American Oil Producing Company v. Grizzaffi 135 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
721 ; Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Newman v. McClure 134 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
721 ; Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Atlantic Refining Company v. Golson 127 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Furthermore on the question of reasonable time, we quote the following from Doiron et al. v. Lock, Moore & Co., Ltd. et al., 1928, , 115 So.
Ewald v. Hodges 120 So. 2d 465 La. 1960
“ * * * In the case of Doiron et al. vs. Lock, Moore & Co., Ltd., et al., , 115 So.
Hodgeson v. McDaniel 96 So. 2d 481 La. 1957
721 ; Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Esso Standard Oil Company v. Jordan 92 So. 2d 377 La. 1956
334 ; Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Robinson v. Commercial Cattle Co. 82 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
138 ; Dorion v. Locke, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Marks 74 So. 2d 36 La. 1954
334 ; Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Bridges v. Trevino 64 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
Furthermore, on the question of reasonable time, we quote the following from Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Holloway v. Holloway 60 So. 2d 468 La. 1952
In Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., Limited, , 115 So.
Robertson v. Grigsby 41 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
382 ; Doiron et al. v. Lock, Moore Co., Ltd., et al., , 115 So.
Keller v. Haas 24 So. 2d 610 La. 1945
In Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Succession of Henderson 197 So. 267 La. 1940
from silence and inaction during the time fixed for prescription.” The Barnes Case was cited and its doctrine approved in Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Nielson v. Haas 192 So. 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
719 , and Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Bell v. Canal Bank & Trust Co. 190 So. 359 La. 1939
334 ; Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Tyson v. York 188 So. 33 La. 1939
721 , and Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Chachere v. Superior Oil Co. 187 So. 321 La. 1939
41 , and Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Bickham v. Pitts 171 So. 560 La. 1936
529 .” From the cited, case of Wolf v. Wolf, we quote the following: “The vendor himself is not permitted to question the sale he has made, unless he has reserved a counter-letter, or relies on the answers of his adversary to interrogatories on facts and articles.” In the case of Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Smith v. Chappell 148 So. 242 La. 1933
737 ; Doiron v. Locke, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Harrell v. Harrell 142 So. 138 La. 1932
58 , 65, ; Ramsey v. Frost-Johnson Lumber Co., 168 La.
De Soto Corporation v. Roberts Lumber G. Co. 141 So. 78 La. 1932
63 [ ] it was said: “ ‘In all cases of executed contracts susceptible of ratification, a presumption of ratification juris et de jure results from silence and inaction during the time fixed for prescription.’ “To the same effect is Brownson v. Weeks, 47 La.
Capra v. Viola 135 So. 41 La. 1931
873 ; Doiron et al. v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.
Capra v. Viola 131 So. 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Boiron et al. v. Lock Moore & Co., Ltd., et al., , 115 So.
Kilbourne v. E. J. Hackney Lbr. Co. 130 So. 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
In the case of Doiron et al. v. Lock, Moore & Co., , 115 So.