Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Smith v. Bratsos, 12 So. 2d 245.

16 citing documents.

LeGardeur International, Inc. v. Ascension Construction Corp. 504 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Another, perhaps not grave, is the chattel mortgage's description with wrong serial numbers ( , (1942)).
Rayne State Bank & Trust Co. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. 483 So. 2d 987 La. 1986
[11] See, , (1942); Union Bldg.
Warren Refrigerator Co. v. Fosti Midstream Fueling & Service, Inc. 462 So. 2d 1343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
A clear and succinct statement of this principle is to be found in the opinion of the late Judge Taliaferro of this court in Smith v. Bratsos, La.App., , (certiorari granted and judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed on other grounds, , ).
Auto Paint & Supplies Co. v. Hale 408 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
In this regard, the Domengeaux court noted: “ , the Supreme Court held that the description of a refrigerator in a chattel mortgage was sufficient to place third parties on notice, although there was no serial number included.
First Nat. Bank v. Higgs 406 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Domengeaux v. Daniels 401 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
(1943), the Supreme Court held that the description of a refrigerator in a chattel mortgage was sufficient to place third parties on notice, although there was no serial number included.
Long Leaf Lumber, Inc. v. Summer Grove Develop., Inc. 270 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
636 (La.App.1st Cir. 1932); , (1942).
All State Credit Plan Houma, Inc. v. Fournier 175 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
concerned an item designated as a Hussman-Ligonier Refrigerator and accompanying condenser.
Harper v. Borden Company 129 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
752 ; , ; In re Ratcliff, D.C.La.1933, 2 F.Supp.
Sabourin v. Jilek 128 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1961
Whitman v. Whitman, 206 La.
Abbott v. Temple 73 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
631 ; Smith v. Bratsos, 1942, , , reversing, La.App., ; Union Building Corporation v. Burmeister, 1937, 186 La.
United Novelty Co. v. Salemi 68 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
2d 241, 243 , (certiorari granted and judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed on other grounds, , ).
McGuffin v. Barkett 44 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
The Louisiana Supreme Court considered a , , and cited with approval the following textbook statement: “ ‘A description which will enable third persons, aided by inquiries which the instrument itself suggests, to identify the property, is sufficient.’” (Italics ours).
Matthews v. Couie 35 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
Whitman v. Whitman 18 So. 2d 633 La. 1944
Barrabine v. Bradshears, 5 Mart., O.S., 190; , 12 So.
Central Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Oilfield Supply & Scrap Material Co. 12 So. 2d 819 La. 1943
Smith et al. v. Bratsos, Allied Store Utilities Co., Intervener, La.Sup., ; Union Bldg.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by