Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lawson v. Ripley, 17 La. 238.

14 citing documents.

Creech v. Capitol MacK, Inc. 287 So. 2d 497 La. 1973
Bourgeois v. Ducos 182 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
624 ; ; Succession of McLean, 12 La.Ann.
Daigre v. Daigre 89 So. 2d 41 La. 1956
Succession of McLean, 12 La.Ann.
Slaton v. King 36 So. 2d 648 La. 1948
526 ; ; Dominguez v. Lee, 17 La.
Kelley v. Kelley 3 So. 2d 641 La. 1941
Tomme v. Tomme 139 So. 901 La. 1932
But neither the spouses nor the heirs have anything to claim out of the acquéts and gains “until all the debts are paid or liquidated.” ; Suc.
Kittredge v. Grau 103 So. 723 La. 1925
231 ; ; Percy v. Percy, 9 La.
Dillon v. Freville 57 So. 316 La. 1912
7, No. 9, states it to be one of the principal effects of an exchange that the thing is subrogated in full right to that which was alienated; subrogatum capit naturam subrogati.” , it was held (quoting from the syllabus): “When the title to property brought in marriage was in the party, although not paid for, it became his separate property, and remained such at the dissolution of the community.
Succession of Weber 34 So. 731 La. 1901
Hefner v. Parker 47 La. Ann. 656 La. 1895
Heirs of Brown v. Jacobs 24 La. Ann. 526 La. 1872
Macon v. Willson 9 La. Ann. 178 La. 1854
Fortier v. Slidell 7 La. 398 La. 1844
Hart v. Foley 1 Rob. 378 La. 1842
v. Ripley, , we have said, that the wife, or her representatives, although their distinct interest in the community attaches at the dissolution of the marriage, subject to their right to renounce and be exonerated from the payment of the community debts, have nothing to claim out of the acquets et gains, until such debts are pai