Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Tennent v. Caffery, 113 So. 167.
-
Kirkeby-Natus Corporation v. Campbell
199 So. 2d 904
La. 1967
More appropriate, we think, , 113 So.
- Kirkeby-Natus Corp. v. Campbell 192 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
-
Phillips v. Kathman-Landry, Inc.
144 So. 2d 889
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
he purchaser shall issue execution first against the judgment debtor, and if his judgment remains unsatisfied, he may issue execution against the seizing creditor.” The official revision comments clearly indicate that the eviction from the property is not necessarily to be construed as an actual eviction, but is correlated with the warranty provisions of the Civil Code, , 113 So.
- Quarles v. Lewis 75 So. 2d 14 La. 1954
- Hausler v. Nuccio 39 So. 2d 734 La. 1949
- Himel v. Connely 197 So. 424 La. 1940
-
Parish of Jefferson v. Texas Co.
189 So. 580
La. 1939
For the court to be legally in a position to do this it is not necessary that the third person to the sale be bound by the decree.” The following decisions, cited by plaintiff, are in accordance with the quoted statement: , 113 So.
-
Gordon v. Algiers Securities, Inc.
153 So. 364
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
answer to the question certified to us is that a vendee in the undisturbed possession of property has the right to sue his vendor for the restitution of the purchase price thereof, whenever he is in position to show, and so shows, that a perfect title to the property exists in some third person, whereby it is rendered legally certain that his vendor had no title.” 'See, also, , 113 So.
- Jones v. Briscoe 154 So. 7 La. 1934
- Jacobsen v. McGarry 150 So. 838 La. 1933
- Barrow v. Milling, Godchaux, Saal & Milling 146 So. 475 La. 1933
-
Goudeau v. Roach
136 So. 88
La. 1931
978 , ; Strange v. Continental Supply Co., 165 La.
- Tennent v. Caffery 129 So. 128 La. 1930
- Abney v. Levy 124 So. 766 La. 1929