Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In Re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co., 160 So. 609.

20 citing documents.

Schwegmann v. Schwegmann 441 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
1 , (1951); In re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co., , 160 So.
Davis v. Miller Builders & Developers, Inc. 340 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
In Re: Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co., , 160 So.
Dauzat v. Simmesport State Bank 167 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
This rule was recognized by our Supreme Court in the case of In re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co., , 160 So.
Wilson v. King 165 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
464 ; In re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co., , 160 So.
City of Alexandria v. Shevnin 126 So. 2d 336 La. 1961
In re *339 Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co., , 160 So.
In Re Standard Homestead Ass'n 22 So. 2d 119 La. 1945
366 ; In re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co., , 160 So.
In Re Interstate Trust & Banking Co. 176 So. 1 La. 1937
That question is settled by the recent decision of this court in the case of In re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Company (Intervention of Clark & Company), , 160 So.
In Re Canal Bank & Trust Co. 174 So. 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Counsel for both parties have filed with , us a statement agreeing that the legal issues presented are the same as those which were found in Re Canal Bank & Trust Company in Liquidation (intervention of John F. Clark & Co.), , 160 So.
In Re Canal Bank & Trust Co. 172 So. 48 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1937
In justice to the trial court, it should be observed that its decision in favor of the intervener was rendered soon after the liquidation proceedings had taken place (at a time when the various quéstions concerning the application Of Act No. 63 of 1926 were unsettled) and long prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Intervention of Clark & Co., .
Investors Syndicate v. Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. 172 So. 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
The Supreme Court of Louisiana, in Re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Company (Intervention of Clark & Company), , 160 So.
In Re Canal Bank & Trust Co. 170 So. 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
See In re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co. (Intervention of Clark & Co.), , 160 So.
In Re Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. 169 So. 464 La. 1936
534 ; In re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co., Intervention of John F. Clark, , 160 So.
In Re Canal Bank & Trust Co. 167 So. 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
In Intervention of Clark & Co., , 160 So.
In Re Canal Bank & Trust Co. 167 So. 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
This was exactly the contention which was presented to the Supreme Court in the matter of Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co. (Intervention of Clark & Co.), , 160 So.
In Re Canal Bank Trust Company 162 So. 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Thereafter, on the 4th day of February, 1935, the Supreme Court, in its decision in Re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co. (Intervention of John F. Clark & Co.), , 160 So.
In Re Liquidation of Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. 162 So. 644 La. 1935
“In this state it is well settled that privileges are granted only in pursuance of law and not from considerations of equity, and that the one who asserts a privilege has the burden of establishing it.” In re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co., Intervention of John F. Clark & Co., , 160 So.
In Re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co. 161 So. 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
* * * ” Article 3183, R. C. C. “Privilege can be claimed only for those debts to which it is expressly granted in this Code.” Article 3185, R. C. C. In the very recent case of Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co., Intervention of John F. Clark & Co., decided May 16, 1935, , the same court said: al. v. Kracke & Flanders Co., 12 La.
In Re Canal Bank & Trust Co. 161 So. 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
F. Clark Co.), , of the Supreme Court (not reported [in State Reports]), decided February 4, 1935.
Owen v. Tangipahoa Bank & Trust Co. 162 So. 8 La. 1935
In re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co. (Intervention of John F. Clark & Co.), , 160 So.
In Re Canal Bank & Trust Co. 161 So. 15 La. 1935
The case of In re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co. (Intervention of John F. Clark & Co.) , 1 of this court, relied upon by .the liquidator, is not in point, because in that case the customer consented to the immediate negotiation of the drafts and the deposit of the funds to his unrestricted checking account, while the bank was doing business on an unrestricted basis.