Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Palangue v. Guesnon, 15 La. 311.

25 citing documents.

Mitchell v. Clark 448 So. 2d 681 La. 1984
Fontenot v. Lewis 215 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
877 ; ; Levy v. Ward, 33 La.Ann.
Campbell v. Thomas 140 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
877 ; ; Levy v. Ward, 33 La.Ann.
Blackwell v. Nagy 122 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Is it not ah actual fraud to claim an undue benefit and advantage from a mere mistake, contrary to the real intention of the parties to the contract?’ “ ‘ , it was held that parol evidence was admissible to show that the description of a lot in a deed was made through error and that the lot actually sold was a different one from that described in the deed.
Love v. Dedon 118 So. 2d 122 La. 1960
347 ; ; Williams v. Vance, 2 La.Ann.
Isacks v. Deutsch 114 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
497 ; ; Municipality No. 2 v. Palfrey, 7 La.Ann.
Moody v. Singleton 113 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
877 ; ; Levy v. Ward, 33 La.Ann.
Merritt v. Hays 111 So. 2d 771 La. 1959
and Gladdish v. Godchaux, 46 La.Ann.
Griffin v. Bank of Abbeville & Trust Co. 88 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Dickson v. Dickson, 36 La.Ann.
Southwest Gas Producing Co. v. Hattie Brothers 88 So. 2d 649 La. 1956
Dickson v. Dickson, 36 La.Ann.
Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. v. Hawkins 179 So. 21 La. 1938
Gladdish v. Godchaux, 46 La.Ann.
Jackson v. Dominick 166 So. 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
347 ; ; also, Succession of Goodrich, 6 Rob.
Ducre v. Milner 120 So. 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Palangue vs. Guesnon, ; Vignie vs. Brady & Charpaux, 35 La.
Dorkins v. Montgomery 2 La. App. 292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
The leading case in point is that of Plangue vs. Guesnon, , which has been many' times cited affirmatively from the Succession of Goodrich, 6 R. 109 , down to Sims vs. Jeter, 129 La.
Waller v. Colvin 92 So. 328 La. 1922
877 ; ; Levy v. Ward, 33 La.
Lattimer's Heirs v. Gulf Refining Co. 83 So. 543 La. 1919
the difficulty was simply as to the admissibility of parol evidence to show that the description had been made to cover the wrong property ; there was no doubt as to the error.
Smith's Heirs v. Railroad Lands Co. 45 So. 441 La. 1908
*569 To sustain plaintiffs’ ; Robert v. Boulat, 9 La.
Barrow v. Grant's Estate 41 So. 220 La. 1906
347 ; ; also, Succession of Goodrich, 6 Rob.
Penn v. Rodriguez 38 So. 955 La. 1905
Ann. 416 ; ; Brown, Tutor, v. Broussard, 43 La.
Gray v. Coco 36 So. 878 La. 1904
497 ; Palangue v. Guesnon; F. W. C., ; Municipality No. 2 v. Palfrey, 7 La.
Gladdish v. Godchaux 46 La. Ann. 1571 La. 1894
152; Palangue vs. Guesnon, ; Robert vs. Boulet, 9 An.
Bryan v. Wisner 44 La. Ann. 832 La. 1892
Ker v. Evershed 41 La. Ann. 15 La. 1889
In Palanquo vs. Guesnon, — a leading case, and one that is cited in many recent opinions — the .Court- said : “ The jdaintiff now seeks to recover a lot of ground, such as is called for by his deed of sale.
Dickson v. Ford 38 La. Ann. 736 La. 1886
350 ; Palangue vs. Guesnon, ; Williams vs. Vance, 2 Ann. 909; Roberts vs. Boulat, 9 Ann. 29; Laramia vs. Courrégé, 13 Ann. 25; Fleming et al. vs. Scott et al., 26 Ann. 545; Cole vs. Smith, 29 Ann. 551; Jackson vs. Miller, 32 Ann. 432; Levy vs. Ward, 33 Ann. 1033; Vignie vs. Brady, 35 Ann. 560; Armstrong vs. Armstrong, 36 Ann. 551; Bellock vs. Gi
Armstrong v. Armstrong 36 La. Ann. 549 La. 1884
319 ; Palanque vs. Guesnon, ; Belot vs. Donovan, 1 Rob.