Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lawrence v. Claiborne, 41 So. 2d 680.

16 citing documents.

Delcambre v. Dubois 263 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
(1949) there was an apparent sale but the counter letter provided that the purchaser was merely an agent in whose name the title was placed for convenience.
Stanfill v. Johnson 258 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1949); Franton v. Rusca, 187 La.
Wise v. Johnson 241 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Marionneaux v. Edwards, 4 La.Ann.
Bash v. Sims 210 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
(1949); Franton v. Rusca, 187 La.
Little v. Haik 163 So. 2d 558 La. 1964
Terrell v. Wright 161 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
with reference to plaintiff’s contention that defendant was acting merely as agent and that the property was placed in defendant’s name for convenience only, the court very appropriately stated: .
Brumfield v. Paul 145 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
refused to permit the introduction of parol testimony, in the absence of allegations of fraud or error, to vary the recitals of an authentic act.
Johnson v. Harper 129 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
and Locascio v. First State Bank & Trust Company of Hammond, 168 La.
Perry v. Perry 122 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Dixie Pine Products Co. v. Switzer 111 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
66 ; , ; Smith v. Bell, 224 La.
Spiers v. Davidson 96 So. 2d 502 La. 1957
Claudet v. Claudet 69 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
The testimony should have been excluded under Articles 2236 and 2276, LSA-C.C., and as there was no fraud or error set up in the answer of the defendant, , , the testimony of the defendant should have been excluded.
Succession of Nelson 70 So. 2d 665 La. 1953
made by his ancestor, for the purpose of showing that it was a simulation, in order to bring the property back into his ancestor’s succession or to recover it for himself, but he cannot use parol evidence to bring into the succession or recover property, which under no form of title recognized by law ever belonged to his ancestor or to his ancestor’s succession.” See also, , .
Smith v. Bell 68 So. 2d 737 La. 1953
66 , 68 , , and authorities cited in both cases.
Serio v. Chadwick 66 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1953
In Lawrence v. Claiborne, 1949, , , the defendant excepted to the petition on the ground that plaintiff was without a right or cause of action to attempt establishment of title either by parol or by evidence dehors the authentic act, under which he acquired, basing the exception on Articles 2236 and 2276 of the LSA-Civil Code.
Louis v. Garrison 64 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953