Legal Opinion
Consolidated Companies v. Angelloz
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided November 7, 1936No. 1640PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DORE, Judge.
The facts and issues involved in this case are fully given in our original opinion. See 166 So. 910.
Three principal contentions are made by counsel for plaintiff in the attack made on the correctness of the original opinion. These three contentions will be taken up in order:(1) It is strenuously contended that we were in error in holding that parol testimony was admissible to show: (a) That the guaranty was without consideration, or that the consideration was other than that alleged in the petition, and to show whether or not the consideration was legal and sufficient under the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gravier's Curator v. Carraby'sSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1841
- Schmidt v. BarkerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1865
- John T. Hardie's Sons & Co. v. ScheenSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1903
- Consolidated Companies, Inc. v. AngellozLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1936
- J. R. Watkins Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Jary v. EmmettLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1970
- Russell v. DougetLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1936
- Van Horn v. ViningLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1961
- Federal Farm Mortg. Corp. v. HattenSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1946