Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cousins v. Cusachs

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided March 8, 1927No. 3258Published

1DissentLeche, J.

A promise of sale is by its nature an indivisible obligation (Art. C. C .2109) and must be executed entirely or not at all. An obligation which is indivisible as to the obligee is also indivisble as to the obligor. Randolph vs. Stark, 51 La. Ann. 1126, 26 South. 59; Barrow & LeBlanc vs. Penick & Ford, 110 La. 572, 34 South. 691; Gra*845ham vs. Barnhart, 117 La. 1023, 42 South. 489; Suthon vs. Laws, 127 La. 531, 53 South. 852. In this case the promisor is dead, and by Art. C. Q. 2114, his heirs are ach bound to eexcute the contract in its entirety. The decree in this cas a ojepsses262,..te

The…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Murray v. BarnhartSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1906
  2. Suthon v. LawsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1910
  3. Barrow v. PenickSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1903
  4. Randolph v. StarkSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1899

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

Powered by the Exa API