Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bennett-Brewer Hardware Co. v. Wakeman, 107 So. 286.

20 citing documents.

Streetman v. Bryan 315 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
“I owe her nothing.” , 107 So.
Duncan v. Roane 127 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
694 ; Bennett-Brewer Hardware Co. v. Wakeman, 1926, , 107 So.
Reuter Seed Co. v. Croft 119 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
The Supreme Court, , 107 So.
Bartley, Incorporated v. Town of Westlake 111 So. 2d 328 La. 1959
Wenk v. Anisman 30 So. 2d 567 La. 1947
W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Hammons 24 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1946
State Ex Rel. Cottonport Bank v. Avoyelles Parish Police Jury 10 So. 2d 773 La. 1942
Ben *975 nett-Brewer Hardware Co., , 107 So.
Brazier v. Pride of Donaldsonville Tabernacle No. 40 180 So. 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
See Bennett-Brewer Hardware Co., Inc., v. Wakeman, , 107 So.
Armstrong v. Baldwin 181 So. 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Carr v. Eby 177 So. 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Bennett-Brewer Hardware Co., Inc., v. Wakeman, , 107 So.
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Thomson Gin Co. 168 So. 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
White Bros. Co. v. Shinn 160 So. 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
App. 376 ; Id., , 107 So.
American Furniture Co., Inc. v. Patterson 157 So. 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Becker v. Hollywood Theatre 155 So. 522 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1934
726 .” In affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court said ( , 107 So.
Bowie Lumber Co. v. Youngs 144 So. 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
Bennett-Brewer Hardware Co., Inc., v. Wakeman, , 107 So.
H. H. Prescott & Son v. Hollingsworth 120 So. 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
The payment and acknowledgment of the account interrupted prescription, and the plea was properly overruled and judgment rendered for plaintiff (Bennett-Brewer Hardware Co. vs. Wakeman, , 107 So.
Hirsch v. Montgomery 8 La. App. 243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
Defendant’s main argument is that payment of a part of the bill after futile protest as to its size did not constitute acknowledgment of claimant’s right and in support of his contention, he relies mainly on two cases, Bennet-Brewer Hardware Co. vs. Wakeman, , 107 So.
Holmes Co. v. Hiller 7 La. App. 590 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1928
A verbal acknowledgment of the debtor will suffice.” But whatever fluctuations might have existed, the case of Bennett vs. Wakeman, , 107 So.
Lowentritt v. Posey 5 La. App. 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
App. 376 , and the same case , 107 South.
Paine v. Todd 6 La. App. 528 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Co. vs. Wakeman, , 107 South.