Legal Opinion

Di Carlo v. Latter & Blum, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided May 13, 1959No. 17568PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

Plaintiffs, resident citizens of New Orleans, Louisiana, asserting federal jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1351,1 and alleging that they had been induced by fraud to purchase a certain property in the City of New Orleans, brought this suit as a redhibitory action against the defendant-appellee Pacanins, the duly recognized Consul of the Republic of Venezuela at New Orleans, as vendor, joining in it his agents in the sale, Latter & Blum, Inc., a Louisiana corporation, and its employee, Bernard Kansas, a resident and citizen of Louisiana.

The defendant Pacanins answered denying…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Froment v. DuclosDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1887
  2. Di Carlo v. PacaninsDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1958

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Vincent Di Carlo and Mrs. Rose M. Savarino, His Wife v. Latter & Blum, Inc., Bernard Kansas, and Francisco Pacanins, Latter & Blum, Inc. And Bernard Kansas v. Vincent Di Carlo and Mrs. Rose M. Savarino, His WifeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API