Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pruyn v. Gay, 106 So. 536.

26 citing documents.

Young v. Tolintino 26 So. 3d 835 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
586 (1927); *841 , 106 So.
Seals v. Sumrall 887 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Montz v. Theard 818 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
IP Timberlands Operating Co. v. Denmiss Corp. 657 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
McCall v. McCall 651 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Genola v. Genola 409 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Thompson v. Bullock 236 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
Mossy Enterprises, Inc. v. Piggy-Bak Cartage Corp. 177 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
aintiff's claims for both the Value Termination Adjustment and the Rental Termination Adjustment are claims for liquidated damages being damages fixed in advance of default and contend that they are unenforcible under the jurisprudence because they bear no reasonable relation to the damage which could have been anticipated from breach of the contract, citing the bond for deed cases, , 106 So.
Bornemann v. Richards 161 So. 2d 741 La. 1964
Scott v. Apgar 113 So. 2d 457 La. 1959
Ober v. Williams 35 So. 2d 219 La. 1948
Louisiana Delta Farms Co. v. Davis 12 So. 2d 213 La. 1942
Brown v. Weldon. 199 So. 620 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1941
Southwestern Improvement Co. v. Whittington 193 So. 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
360 ; Ekman v. Vallery, supra; , 106 So.
Masters v. Cleveland 162 So. 51 La. 1935
As remarked by the Court of Appeal, “While the contract does not say that these payments could be retained as offsetting the value of the use and occupancy of the property, yet as an equitable proposition, that would be the *491 result.” , 106 So.
Williams v. Delacroix Corporation 160 So. 444 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1935
Masters v. Cleveland 158 So. 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Criticized Victor v. Lewis 158 So. 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Dambly v. Burrell 147 So. 711 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
App. 787 , and which was reviewed and set aside by the Supreme Court, , 106 So.
Kendall v. Kendall 140 So. 6 La. 1932
Succession of Premeaux 135 So. 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
We satisfy ourselves by quoting from one of the latest, , 104 So.
Davis v. McCain 132 So. 758 La. 1931
Powell v. Codifer & Bonnabel, Inc. 118 So. 817 La. 1928
982 , ; Schluter v. Gentilly Terrace Co., 164 La.
Blade v. Young 8 La. App. 591 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1928
intended to be the final 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.” And in Pruyn vs. Gay, , 106 South.
Schluter v. Gentilly Terrace Co. 114 So. 586 La. 1927
Heeb v. Codifer & Bonnabel, Inc. 110 So. 178 La. 1926