DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Williams v. Bowie Lumber Co., 38 So. 2d 729.

16 citing documents.

  • Fairbanks Development, Llc v. Charles Woodrow Johnson And Jessica Lyn Petersen La. 2021
  • Compass Energy Operating, LLC v. Robena Prop. & Royalty Co. 265 So. 3d 1160 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
    Williams v. Bowie Lumber Co. , , (1948).
  • Loutre Land and Timber Co. v. Roberts 47 So. 3d 478 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    (1948) (It seems to be settled now by the jurisprudence in Louisiana that such a vague and indefinite description, in an instrument purporting to convey title to real estate, as all h4of the land owned by the seller in a named parish, is not sufficiently specific to give notice to third parties thereaft
  • Energy Development Corp. v. Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. 734 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    We also find that the property description in the 1971 conveyance is not an “omnibus” , (1948).
  • Williams v. Williams 586 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Dickerson v. Scott 476 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Major v. Morgan 408 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Snow v. MacDonnell 378 So. 2d 611 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    o the above description in stating: “It seems to be settled now by the jurisprudence in Louisiana that such 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 the named parish, is not sufficient or specific to give notice to third parties thereafter dealing with the seller.” Williams v. Bowie Lumber Co., Ltd., , (1948) recognized that an omnibus description is valid between the immediate parties referred to,
  • Valvoline Oil Company v. Krauss 335 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Noel v. Noel 312 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Wurzlow v. Placid Oil Company 279 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    " , , the Supreme Court observed, with regard to such jurisprudence: `...
  • JH Jenkins Contractors, Inc. v. Farriel 246 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    dispels the dicta in Baldwin v. Arkansas-Louisiana Pipe Line Co., above, and Cupples v. Harris, 202 La.
  • Cattle Farms, Inc. v. Abercrombie 211 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
  • Harper v. Celotex Corp. 183 So. 2d 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    Plaintiff’s contention that the fail•ure to describe the Jefferson Parish real estate with particularity made the 1956 quitclaim ineffective, , ; O’Meara v. Broussard, La.App., ; Wolf v. Carter, 131 La.
  • O'Meara v. Broussard 162 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    In Williams v. Bowie Lumber Co., Limited, , , which was recently followed in the case of Tucker v. New Orleans Launderies, Inc., 4 Cir., , we find the following pertinent language 38 So.2d at page 730 , 731: “The main contention of the defendant is that the deed from Martin to Down-man transferred the land in controversy, even thoug
  • Tucker v. New Orleans Laundries, Inc. 145 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    *372 As to the lack of a sufficient description, , , that a general description of the property is valid as between the parties and, in fact, the very description which is attacked in this case was held to be legally sufficient in the case of Kohler v. McClellan, 156 F.2d 908 .