Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Di Cristina v. Weiser, 42 So. 2d 868.

43 citing documents.

  • Campbell v. Melton 817 So. 2d 69 La. 2002
    Civ.Code art. 2993 (mandate); , (1949) (holding that extension of time for performance must be in writing); Miller v. Douville, 12 So.
  • Pat S. Todd Oil Co., Inc. v. Wall 581 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    Bank v. Palermo, supra ; , (1949); (La.App.
  • Whitney Nat. Bank v. Palermo 505 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Lejeune v. Redd 478 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Poissenot v. Guildcraft Homes, Inc. 394 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    2275 and 2440; , (1949); Hoth v. Schmidt, 220 La.
  • Lipscomb v. Chadbourne 378 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Hebert v. Knoll 370 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
  • Dapremont v. Crossley 367 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    (1949), in which the stipulated date passed without action by either party.
  • Karmgard v. SOUTHLAND MORTG. & TITLE CO. 341 So. 2d 1109 La. 1977
    (1949); Davidson v. Midstates Oil Corporation, 211 La.
  • Torrey v. Simon-Torrey, Inc. 307 So. 2d 569 La. 1974
    (1949); Davidson v. Midstates Oil Corporation, 211 La.
  • Fortenberry v. Decay 279 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    We find that these cases, and others to the same effect, , (1949), are not applicable in the instant case.
  • Valley Land Corporation v. Fielder 242 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1971
  • Parker Mead, Inc. v. Cutrer 239 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Thompson v. Bullock 236 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
    249 , ; , ; Barchus v. Johnson, 151 La.
  • Choctaw Home Builders, Inc. v. Lena, Inc. 223 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Transcontinental Development Corp. v. Bruning 195 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    As did the District Court, we can find no basis in law or fact which supports this contention, and agree with the District Court’s conclusion, viz: “Accordingly, the Court finds no facts established which would except this case from the rule of law enunciated by Article 1913 of the Louisiana Civil Code, , (1949), and judgment will be entered for the defendant in accordance herewith.” Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is amended only with respect to include therein that the agreemen
  • Ezell v. Loucks 167 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • BF Edington Drilling Company v. Yearwood 118 So. 2d 419 La. 1960
    732 ; , ; Amos v. Waggoner, 229 La.
  • B. F. Edington Drilling Co. v. Yearwood 118 So. 2d 419 La. 1960
    732 ; , ; Amos v. Waggoner, 229 La.
  • Kennedy v. Pope Park, Inc. 109 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    In support of this contention defendant, Pope, , .
  • Zemurray v. Boe 105 So. 2d 243 La. 1958
    811 , ; , , or of the time given by a written option to accept the same, Conklin v. Caffall, 189 La.
  • Reine v. Kirn 102 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    Di Cristina v. Weiser, 1949, -1122 , -870 .
  • Everhardt v. Sighinolfi 95 So. 2d 632 La. 1957
    and Hoth v. Schmidt, 220 La.
  • Everhardt v. Sighinolfi 95 So. 2d 632 La. 1957
    and Hoth v. Schmidt, 220 La.
  • Amos v. Waggoner 85 So. 2d 58 La. 1956
    732 ; , and Shell Oil Company v. Hogan, 228 La.
  • Amos v. Waggoner 85 So. 2d 58 La. 1956
    732 ; , and Shell Oil Company v. Hogan, 228 La.
  • Shell Oil Co. v. Hogan 81 So. 2d 761 La. 1955
    837 , ; , ; Harrell v. Stumberg, 220 La.
  • Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. v. Saint Denis Securities Co. 72 So. 2d 257 La. 1954
    109 and authorities there cited; , and Bordelon v. Crabtree, 216 La.
  • Langley v. Rieth 64 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    and Weiser v. Di Cristina, 221 La.
  • Dane & Northrop v. Selzer 63 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    As supporting this contention, counsel for defendant directs our attention to two decisions upon which he places great reliance, , , and Barchus v. Johnson, 151 La.
  • Weiser v. Di Cristina 59 So. 2d 401 La. 1952
    It is a sequel to the case of Di Cristina v. Weiser, No. 272,006, Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, No. 39,018 of the docket of this Court, reported in , , where we held that Di Cristina had no right to bring an action for specific performance, because the time within which he had been obligated to take title had expired and “any extension of time for performance, where •failure to comply, ipso facto, places the offeror in default, would have to be
  • Stack v. De Soto Properties, Inc. 59 So. 2d 428 La. 1952
  • Harrell v. Stumberg 57 So. 2d 692 La. 1952
    837 , ; , and Hoth v. Schmidt, 220 La.
  • Harrell v. Stumberg 57 So. 2d 692 La. 1952
    837 , ; , and Hoth v. Schmidt, 220 La.
  • Hoth v. Schmidt 56 So. 2d 412 La. 1951
  • Kenney v. Wedderin 56 So. 2d 550 La. 1951
  • Hoth v. Schmidt 56 So. 2d 412 La. 1951
  • Dean v. Pisciotta 49 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
  • Bruno v. Serio 50 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
  • Matthews v. Gaubler 49 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    wherein the Supreme Court held that one who himself is in default on a contract for the sale and purchase of real property, cannot subsequently put the other party in default, under the provisions of art. 1913, R.C.C.
  • Nettles v. Vignes 49 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1950
    decided by the Supreme Court June 30, 1949, rehearing denied November 7, 1949, is apposite and controlling.
  • Atlantic Refining Co. v. Shell Oil Co. 46 So. 2d 907 La. 1950
    Taking cognizance of this deletion would be appropriate in an action between the parties to the instrument ( , ) but a third person (like plaintiff), relying on the public record, was not required to investigate deletions which formed no part of the contract and which were not written, so far as he was concerned.
  • Giammanchere v. Di Giovanni 43 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    In our opinion the case of Di Cristina v. Weiser, Sup., , decided June 30, 1949, rehearing denied November 7, 1949, is apposite and controlling.