Legal Opinion
Hortman-Salmen Co. v. Naquin
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided February 17, 1930No. 11,850PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJanvier, J.
Defendant Naquin, a contractor, undertook the repair and reconstruction of certain premises, in this city, belonging to Felix Famularo.
No written contract was entered into, and no bond was required of the contractor.
Lumber and building material to the extent of $1,148.87 was purchased by Naquin from the Hortman-Salmen Co., Inc., and was used in the said repair and reconstruction work.
When the work was nearly completed, Famularo, apparently becoming fearful that the purchases made from the Hortman-Salmen Company might not be paid for by Na-quin,- upon the occasion of the making of a payment of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Grand Lodge, Benevolent Knights of America v. Murphy Const. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1922
- Lamson v. BeardCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1899
- Merchants Insurance v. HerberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- First Nat. Bank v. GibertSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1909
- Griffin v. His CreditorsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1843
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- R. P. Farnsworth & Co. v. Electrical Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1940
- Duffy v. RomanLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1968
- Schwartz Supply Co. v. BreenLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1938
- Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1931
- George E. Breece Lumber Co. v. MorrisLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1932
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.