Legal Opinion
Conklin v. Caffall
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Decided February 7, 1938No. 34308PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
O’NIELL, Chief Justice.
The plaintiff is appealing from a judgment rejecting his demand to have a certain instrument, purporting to be an op-, tion to buy the west half of a city block in Jennings, decreed to be a contract of antichresis, or pledge of the property to secure a debt. The instrument is annexed to and forms part of the plaintiff’s petition — and is as follows :
“Feb. 3, 1933
“Contract and Agreement:
“By and between F. B. Caffall and Mary A. Caffall, parties of the first part, of Jennings, La.', and Lulu M. Albright, of Des Moines, Iowa, herein represented by W. R. Conklin, of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Salley v. LouviereSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1935
- Livingston's v. StorySupreme Court of the United States · 1837
- Barchus v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1922
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1906
- Moore v. BoagniSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1903
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Di Cristina v. WeiserSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1949
- Gautreaux v. HarangSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1938
- Davidson v. Midstates Oil CorporationSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1947
- In Re Industrial Homestead Ass'nLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1940
- Noto v. BlascoLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1940
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.