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