DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Peck v. Bemiss, 10 La. Ann. 160.

14 citing documents.

  • Hines v. Dance 460 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    in support of his argument that the language of the present contract is not translative of title but is a promise of sale instead of a contract of sale.
  • Stephens v. Bulkley 41 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
    In the Ober case, : " 'This reciprocal promise of sale did not make Peck the owner of the land.
  • T. Aucoin &. Sons v. Young 138 So. 437 La. 1931
    is held by the court to be controlling on the point and to furnish ample authority for its ruling.
  • T. Aucoin & Sons v. Young 132 So. 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
    as the leading case on that proposition.
  • Blade v. Young 8 La. App. 591 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1928
    ies does not purport to transfer the ownership or translate the title, and there are many decisions dealing with the effect of such agreements having relation to real estate, especially prior to the amendment of Article 2466, which declared a promise to sell amounts to a sale when there exists a reciprocal consent of both parties as to the thing and the price, among which we note Peck vs. Bemiss, ; Knox vs. Payne, 13 La.
  • Babst v. Hartz 1 La. App. 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
    Until a voluntary or forced execution of the promise, the ownership did not pass to Peck.” Peck vs. Bemiss, .
  • Pruyn v. Gay 2 La. App. 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
    679 ; see also: Peck vs. Bemiss, ; Clark vs. Comford, 45 La.
  • Trichel v. Home Ins. 99 So. 403 La. 1924
    121 ; ; Satterfield v. Keller, 14 La.
  • Page v. Loeffler 84 So. 194 La. 1920
    Ann. 80 ; ; Garrett v. Crooks, 15 La.
  • Whited & Wheless, Ltd. v. Calhoun 47 So. 415 La. 1908
    109 ; ; Millaudon v. Ranney, 18 La.
  • Smith v. Hussey 43 So. 902 La. 1907
    See, also, ; Abels v. Glover, 15 La.
  • Lehman v. Rice 43 So. 639 La. 1907
  • Girault v. Feucht 41 So. 572 La. 1906
    Ann. 80 ; ; Knox v. Payne, 13 La.
  • Kaplan v. Whitworth 40 So. 723 La. 1905
    cy if it deprived individuals of the right to make prospective agreements for a sale, or told them that if they make each other a reciprocal promise to buy or sell a thing a year hence, for example, they should be absolutely considered as having-made a present sale, with all the incidents of the shifting of the risk, revenues, accretion, etc., which pertain to a contract of sale.” .