Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Daigle v. Calcasieu Nat. Bank in Lake Charles, 9 So. 2d 394.

23 citing documents.

  • 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.