Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Daigle v. Calcasieu Nat. Bank in Lake Charles, 9 So. 2d 394.
-
Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. v. I.P. Petroleum Co.
144 So. 3d 1011
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
t “[t]he description in a deed must be such that the property intended to be conveyed can be located and identified, and the general rule is that the description must fully appear within the four corners of the | ^instrument itself, or that the deed should refer to some map, plat, or deed as a part of the description, so that the same may be clear.” Daigle v. Calcasieu Nat’l Bank in Lake Charles, , (1942).
-
Nitro Energy, L.L.C. v. Nelson Energy, Inc.
34 So. 3d 524
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Bank in Lake Charles, , the supreme court determined that a vague and indefinite description, in an instrument purporting to convey title to real estate, as all of the land owned by the seller in a named parish, is not sufficiently specific to give notice to third parties thereafter dealing with the seller.
-
Energy Development Corp. v. Quality Environmental Processes, Inc.
734 So. 2d 965
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
That case relied on the definition of an omnibus property description found in Daigle v. Calcasieu Nat’l Bank in Lake Charles, , (1942).
-
Garrett v. Pioneer Production Corp.
390 So. 2d 851
La. 1980
Bank in Lake Charles, , (1942); Frost-Johnson Lbr.
-
Snow v. MacDonnell
378 So. 2d 611
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
(1942) involved a contest between a vendee claiming under an omnibus description and a subsequent vendee who was a third party to the former transaction.
- Valvoline Oil Company v. Krauss 335 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
-
Wood v. Morvant
321 So. 2d 914
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
518 ; , ; Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Knapp , above.
- Wurzlow v. Placid Oil Company 279 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
-
JH Jenkins Contractors, Inc. v. Farriel
246 So. 2d 340
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Bank in Lake Charles, , 9 So.
-
Placid Oil Co. v. Young
246 So. 2d 306
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Bank in Lake Charles, , (1942); Hargrove v. Hodge, 121 So.
-
Texaco, Inc. v. H. O. Roy, Inc.
229 So. 2d 739
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Bank in Lake Charles, , (1942).
-
Cattle Farms, Inc. v. Abercrombie
211 So. 2d 354
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
Baldwin v. Arkansas-Louisiana *360 Pipe Line Co., 185 La.
- Cormier v. Billeaudeau 159 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
-
O'Meara v. Broussard
162 So. 2d 777
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
and Baldwin et al. v. Arkansas-Louisiana Pipe Line Co., 185 La.
-
Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Knapp
156 So. 2d 122
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
518 ; , ; Rouyer v. Harrison, La.App.
-
Newman v. McClure
134 So. 2d 556
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
224 (certiorari denied); , ; Smith v. Taylor, 226 La.
-
Smith v. Taylor
75 So. 2d 850
La. 1954
and in the suit of Bologna Bros. v. Stephens, 206 La.
-
Rouyer v. Harrison
58 So. 2d 753
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
“The general rule of laiw in this state as to the sufficiency of a description in a , , and is to the effect that a description in a deed must be such that the property intended to be conveyed can be located and identified and the description must appear within the four corners of the instrument itself or refer to some map, plat, or deed as a part of the description, so that the same may
- Quatre Parish Co. v. Beauregard Parish School Board 57 So. 2d 197 La. 1952
-
Greer v. Sumney
41 So. 2d 526
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Bank in Lake Charles, , 9 So.2d [392], 394; Cupples v. Harris, 202 La.
- Williams v. Bowie Lumber Co. 38 So. 2d 729 La. 1948
-
Bologna Bros. v. Stephens
23 So. 2d 645
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
This principle has been approved in recent decisions of the Supreme Court, , ; Cupples v. Harris, 202 La.
-
Bologna Bros. v. Stephens
18 So. 2d 914
La. 1944
Bank in Lake Charles, , ; Cupples v. Harris, 202 La.