Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ault Wiborg Co. of Canada v. Carson Carbon Co., 160 So. 298.

18 citing documents.

Rabeaux v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 577 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Ault & Wiborg Co. of Canada, , 160 So.
Barnett v. Globe Indem. Co. 557 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
The early case of Ault & , 160 So.
Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. McNamara 452 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
1 JOINT ADVENTURE The early case of Ault & , 160 So.
CAJUN ELEC. POWER CO-OP., INC. v. McNamara 452 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
[1] JOINT ADVENTURE The early case of Ault & , 160 So.
Huffman Technical Drilling, Inc. v. Smith 424 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
See, Ault & Frazell v. United States, 213 F.Supp.
Buckbee on Behalf of Buckbee v. Aweco, Inc. 418 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Ault & Wiborg Co. of Canada, , 160 So.
Aetna Insurance v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 340 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Ault & Wiborg Co. of Canada, , 160 So.
Westenberger v. State, Department of Education 333 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Ault & Wiborg Co. of Canada, , 160 So.
Duncan v. Gill 227 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
re “is that, while a copartnership is ordinarily formed for the transaction of a general business of a particular kind, a joint adventure is usually, but not necessarily, limited to a single transaction, although the business of conducting it to a successful termination may continue for a number of years.’ ” “It is said in Ault & Wiborg Company of Canada, , 160 So.
Prentice v. Amax Petroleum Corp. 187 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
909 (1937); Ault & , 160 So.
Suckle v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company 163 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
Ault & Wiborg Co., , 160 So.
Villarrubia v. Roy 162 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
In the case of Ault & , 160 So.
Hayes v. Muller 158 So. 2d 191 La. 1963
909 (1937); Ault & , 160 So.
Fossier v. American Printing Co., Ltd. 130 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
Ault & Wiborg Co. of Canada, , 160 So.
Guyot v. Labat 126 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Ault & Wiborg Co. of Canada, , 160 So.
Williamson v. Roberts 103 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1958
Counsel for plaintiffs have cited the following authorities which define joint venture: Ault and Wiborg Company of Canada v. Carson Carbon Company, 1935, , 160 So.
Young v. Reed 192 So. 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
re ‘is that, while a copartnership is ordinarily formed for the transaction of a general business of a particular kind, a joint adventure is usually, but not necessarily, limited to a single transaction, although the business of conducting it to a successful termination may continue for a number of years.’ ” .It is said in Ault & Wiborg Company of Canada, , 160 So.
Chambers v. Cope 169 So. 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936