1 Louisiana Law Review Volume 8 Number 3 March 1948 Juridical Basis of Principal - Third Party Liability in Louisiana Undisclosed Agency Cases Fred W. Jones Repository Citation Fred W. Jones, Juridical Basis of Principal - Third Party Liability in Louisiana Undisclosed Agency Cases, 8 La. L. Rev. (1948) Available at: This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact
2 1948] COMMENTS adopted which will provide for separate trials of the general plea of not guilty and the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the crime. Perhaps the California procedure affords the best solution; perhaps an even better solution can be found. Another improvement would be to have a special sanity board, similar to that of Massachusetts, to examine into the sanity of accused persons who raise or may be expected to raise the plea of insanity. EDWIN C. SCHILLING, JR. JURIDICAL BASIS OF PRINCIPAL- THIRD PARTY LIABILITY IN LOUISIANA UNDISCLOSED AGENCY CASES The recent case of Sentell v. Richardson' presented our supreme court with an excellent opportunity to clarify the Louisiana approach to that situation where one person performs a juridical act for another. Under the terms of the contract in that case, plaintiff advanced to defendant the purchase price of certain stock which the latter was to have reissued in his own name without revealing the fact that he was acting for plaintiff. Defendant was then obliged to endorse and deliver the stock to plaintiff. After completing negotiations to purchase it from the owners, however, defendant notified plaintiff of his withdrawal from the contract and sold the stock for himself to a third person. One of the questions in the case was whether or not the contract was one of agency. Plaintiff claimed that defendant was his agent when negotiating for the stock, and as such was legally unable to purchase it for himself. Defendant countered with the proposition that this was no contract of agency since it did not come within the definition of Mandate in Article 2985 of the Civil Code,' which required that the mandatary act in his principal's name. Conceding that there was no representation, the court nevertheless found that the relation was one of mandate, stating that representation was not essential to mandate: "Our opinion is that the words 'and in his name' are not essential to the definition of a procuration or power of attorney, as defined in Article 2985 of the Civil Code. If those words were essential to the definition there La. 288, 29 So. (2d) 852 (1947). 2. "A mandate, procuration or letter of attorney is an act by which one person gives power to another to transact for him and in his name, one or several affairs."
3 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. Vill could be no such thing as a procuration or power of attorney to buy property for an undisclosed principal." ' Was the method employed by the supreme court a satisfactory approach to the problem? A logical step in the pursuit of a possible answer to this question would be a brief consideration of the general manner in which the French and common law treat the subject of "Agency." FRENCH AGENCY CONCEPTS Mandat, or representative agency, is specifically provided for in the French Civil Code. 4 The French Commercial Code sanctions the contract of commission,' or non-representative agency, in commercial matters, and French jurisprudence and doctrine have recognized the contract of prt~e-nom, which is no more than commission transferred to the civil law. 6 While in mandat' liability between principal and third party is recognized, the opposite is true in pr'tenom and commission.' Here we see the result of the French emphasis upon the requirement that there be representation before a principal, rather than his agent, may be held liable by a third person. Thus, in French law, the question of the liability of principal and third party is resolved into one of whether or not there was representation. COMMON LAW AGENCY CONCEPTS Omitting discussion of the various definitions' of "agency" proper, for purposes of this comment, the common law agency situations may be classified as (1) agency disclosed with principal identified, (2) principal undisclosed-either with the fact of agency La. 288, 298, 29 So. (2d) 852, Planiol, Trait6 Elmentaire De Droit Civil (11 ed. 1989) 785, no Goirand, French Commercial Law and the Practice of the Courts (2 ed. 1898) 155. French Commercial Code, Art Planiol, loc. cit. supra note Planiol, op. cit. supra note 6, at 795, no Id. at 797, no 2271: "Los tiors no connaissent, ou sent censs ne connaitro quo to pr~te-nom: c'est 'lui qui ost tour or6ancior, tui qui est leur dibiteur, lui qui et propridtairo des bions mis sous son nom. Its ont done to droit do le poursuivre ot tis peuvent 4tre poursuivis par lui; ot, d'aatre part, its no pouvwnt poursuivre que mi on 9tro poursuivis quo par lui." Also see note 7, supra. 9. A. L. I., Restatement of Agency, 1, defined it as "the relationship which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act." More terse definition is given by Seavey, The Rationale of Agency (1919) 29 Yale L. J. 859,868: "A consensual relationship in which one (the agent) holds in trust for and subject to the control of another (the principal) a power to affect certain legal relations of that other."
4 1948] COMMENTS 411 concealed altogether, or with agency disclosed but principal unidentified. The first situation is very similar to the French mandat, with the rights and duties of principal and agent practically the same. The second classification is comparable to the prete-nom and commission situation, since the principal's identity in both is unknown at the time of the transaction. However, there is one important practical difference between the two. Under this common law situation, which we may call "simple agency" for convenience, principal and third party are permitted to sue each other directly." As previously noted," no such suit is sanctioned under prete-nom or commission. Various theories are advanced to rationalize the common law acceptance of those ideas represented by "simple agency." 2 As to its historical evolution, we know that not until the seventeenth century did the common law, largely through the efforts of the chancellor, begin to accept some of the more advanced ideas of the law merchant on agency.'" For example, although it was originally necessary to show that the specific contract of agency in question was authorized or had been ratified, the court of chancery began to hold a principal liable for goods supplied to his known agent without requiring this proof. Then it took an additional step and protected the interests of a principal whose agent acted in his own name. Eventually this practice was adopted by the law courts. Mr. Justice Holmes explained the adoption of "simple agency"' as he did the master's liability for his servant's torts committed within the scope of employment-the fiction of identity, carried down. from ancient times, by which the slave was viewed as one with his master.'" Another legal historian condemns this theory, pointing to the gap of centuries between the two ideas. 5 He proceeds to expound the proposition that this doctrine came directly, from the action of debt, which was given by the law of contract to an undisclosed principal who furnished the quid pro quo on which the debt was based. This principle was supposed to have been later extended 10. Mississippi Valley Co. v. Abeles, 87 Ark. 374, 112 S. W. 894 (1908); Humphrey v. Bussey, 99 Fla. 1249, 128 So 841 (1930); Johnson v. Maddock, 119 Fla. 777, 161 So. 842 (1935); Schweyer v. Jones, 152 Mich. 241, 115 N. W. 974 (1908); City Trust Co. v. Brewing Co., 174 N. Y. 486, 67 N. E. 62 (1908); Eckstein v. Caldwell, 61 R. I. 142, 200 Atl. 434 (1938); Waddill v. Sebree,. 88 Va. 1012, 14 S. E. 849 (1892); Harris v. McKay, 138 Va. 448, 122 S. E. 137 (1924); 2 Mechem on Agency (2 ed. 1914) 1318, 1731; A. L. I., Restatement of Agency, 674, See note 8, supra. 12. Mechem, Outlines of Agency (3 ed. 1923) 304, Holdsworth, A History of English Law (1927) Select Essays in Anglo-American Law ( ) Walsh, History of Anglo-American Law (2 ed. 1932) 359.
5 412 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. Vil to all contracts with the view taken that the contract was really between the undisclosed principal and the third person. It is further contended that the agent may be liable at the third party's election, not because he is in fact a party to the contract, but because the agent is estopped from denying that the contract is his, due to the false representation that he was the principal. Still another writer declares that to hold the undisclosed principal liable is consistent with the theory of obligations enforced in the action of assumpsit, since he is really the one who caused the third party to act.'" This doctrine of "simple agency" might be superficially justified on the basis of public policy. To allow such suit would be equitable in most cases, and was certainly conducive to the best interests of commerce. However, these different theories have not been examined in an attempt to reach an exact conclusion, but rather to give the reader some idea of the possible reasons for the common law's recognition that privity of contract is not necessary to allow suit between an undisclosed principal and a third party. While, in contrast, the French insist upon representation to render such suit possible. LOUISIANA AGENCY CONCEPTS The Louisiana Civil Code of 1870, like the French Civil Code, provides for only one of the agency situations previously discussed, that of mandate or representative agency. 7 No express reference is made anywhere in our written law to the performance of a juridical act by an agent who acts in his own name. As a result, our jurisprudence repeatedly has had to justify suit between principal and third party on some other basis. The earliest case in point seems to have been that of Williams v. Winchester in 1828." There, the defendant had employed an agent to purchase boilers from plaintiff, without revealing defendant's name. Plaintiff, claimed the purchase price from the defendant, and the latter contended that he was liable only to the agent. Using common law terms but citing no authority for its proposition, the court held that an unknown principal would be liable when discovered, although no inquiry was made by the vendor. 16. Lewis, The Liability of the Undisclosed Principal in Contract (1909) 9 Col. L. Rev Arts , La. Civil Code of Mart. (N. S.) 22 (La. 1828).
6 19481 COMMENTS In Ballister v. Hamilton 9 the opinion was to the effect that "mere knowledge that there is a principal will not destroy the right of a party dealing with an agent, and charging him with the balance due on the transaction, to look to the principal when afterwards discovered." Again, no reference to Louisiana law is made. Following this was the case of Carlisle v. Steamer Eudora & Owners. 2 " Plaintiff had entered into a written contract with one Ealer, agreeing to act as pilot of a steamboat for a specified length of time. Having been dismissed without sufficient cause, he brought suit against Ealer and one Houston, contending that both were liable as co-owners. The court found that although Ealer had contracted in his own name, if it were afterwards discovered that he acted as agent for Houston, both would be liable. An Orleans Court of Appeal case 2 ' in 1913 held that an undisclosed principal, in a business conducted by an agent in his own name, was liable for debts incurred by the agent in the course of the business. Citing a common law authority, the court in Valmont Service Station v. Avegno" 2 again held an undisclosed principal liable. There the plaintiff had serviced a truck believing that the agent was its owner, and sending the demands for payment to him. When the.account was not paid, plaintiff discovered that defendant was owner of the truck and the agent was merely manager of his dairy. Citing Corpus Juris, the court held that "where there is in fact an agency and the fact is concealed, the person dealing with the agent, may, upon discovering the principal, proceed against the latter and not against the agent." The undisclosed principal brought an action in Childers v. Police Jury of Parish of Ouachita" 3 to recover an amount alleged to be due his agent under a contract entered into with defendant for construction of a public road. It was contended that plaintiff had no right of action since he was not privy to the contract. The decision was to the contrary, stating that a direct action by an undisclosed principal is permitted whenever the person contracting with the agent may not be injured. The opinion in Johnson v. Bisso Towboat La. Ann. 401 (1848) La. Ann. 15 (1850). 21. Grimaldi & Co. v. Joseph Sbisa, 10 Orl. App. 176 (1913) La. App. 335 (1925) So. 248 (La. App. 1928).
7 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. Vill Company 24 was to the same effect, holding that when one discovers that the party with whom he dealt has acied as agent, he may seek out the principal and hold him liable. A later Orleans Court of Appeal case 2 " found that "it is a wellestablished rule of general law, that when an agent, on behalf of his principal, entered into a contract as though for himself, and the existence of the principal is not disclosed, the contract inures to the benefit of the principal who may appear and hold the other party to the contract made by the agent." Thus, before Sentell v. Richardson, our jurisprudence decided the issue of liability between principal and third party in nonrepresentative agency cases in conformity with Anglo-American rather than civilian rules. In the Sentell case, Chief Justice O'Niell reaches the same result by a different technique; he denies that representation is essential to mandate. In so saying, he makes our term "mandate" the equivalent of the term "agency" in contract matters at common law. APPRAISAL Would it have been more advantageous for the supreme court to have adopted the French or civilian theory that direct litigation between undisclosed principal and third party be forbidden? Practical demands of present-daylife weigh heavily in favor of the result achieved by our courts. First, there is the matter of convenience in following the law of those jurisdictions to which Louisiana is so closely bound by commercial ties. An even more cogent reason is the important effect of holding the undisclosed principal liable as an added stimulus to the functioning of our complicated business machinery. There is a very definite tendency in the entire field of law to place the burden of financial responsibility on the solvent party. That person would certainly be the undisclosed principal in the majority of cases. The contract made by the agent is really created for the benefit of the undisclosed principal, and to hold him liable for the performance of its terms would seem to contravene none of the principles of natural justice. And, in turn, to make the third party directly responsible to the undisclosed principal for breach of the contract would generally work no hardship upon that third party since, in any case, he would be liable to the agent. 24. Orleans No De Soto Building Co., Ltd. v. Kohnstamm, Orleans No
8 19481 COMMENTS Concluding, then, that the result reached in these non-representative agency cases has been satisfactory, what of the techniques employed to achieve these ends? Is it doctrinally proper to assume that mandate includes non-representative agency even though there is no provision in our written law to that effect? The better course would seem to be a recognition by our supreme court that Louisiana jurisprudence, through a line of consistent decisions, created a set of rules, analogous to those governing "simple agency," to be applied to a situation not provided for in our written law. FRED W. JONES LOUISIANA JUVENILE COURTS -APPEALS In the absence of special constitutional or statutory provisions to the contrary and except for equity proceedings, judicial review in 'common law states does not include questions of fact, but is generally limited to the correction of errors of law.' Thus, the distinction made in Louisiana between appeal on questions of law in criminal cases and appeal on questions of both law and fact in civil cases' is peculiar to this state. Limiting review generally to questions of law is predicated upon the philosophy that the jury should be a final judge on issues of fact and is further bolstered by the practical consideration that a review of the facts would burden the appellate court with an examination and appraisal of all testimony adduced upon the trial of the case. Juvenile court cases, however, are not heard by juries and are not conducted with the formalities of a regular criminal or civil trial. As the Louisiana Supreme Court so aptly stated in the recent case of In re Diaz, "Such cases are not to be classed as civil or criminal-indeed they are sui generis." 3 It is appropriate then that the scope of appeal from juvenile court judgments be considered in the light of the nature of those proceedings with balancing of the practical and policy considerations involved. Two separate and distinct rules are presently employed in Louisiana for appeal from juvenile courts. The Louisiana Constitution 4 provides for appeal from the juvenile court in the Parish of Orleans to the Louisiana Supreme Court on questions of law and 1. 5 C. J. S. 550, n. 92, La. Const. of 1921, Art. VII, So. (2d) 195, 196 (La. 1947). 4. La. Const. of 1921, Art. VII, 96, as amended by La. Act 322 of 1944.
Louisiana Law Review Volume 33 Number 4 ABA Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice - A Student Symposium Summer 1973 Apparent Authority in a Civil Law Jurisdiction Kenneth R. Williams Repository Citation
Louisiana Law Review Volume 16 Number 2 The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court for the 1954-1955 Term February 1956 Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Legalized Gambling - Louisiana State Racing Commission
Louisiana Law Review Volume 45 Number 3 The 1984 Revision of the Louisiana Civil Code's Articles on Obligations - A Student Symposium January 1985 Offer and Acceptance Michael W. Mengis Repository Citation
Louisiana Law Review Volume 8 Number 3 March 1948 Criminal Procedure - Comment on Defendant's Failure to Testify Roland Achee Repository Citation Roland Achee, Criminal Procedure - Comment on Defendant's
Louisiana Law Review Volume 25 Number 4 June 1965 Civil Procedure - Filing Suit In Court of Incompetent Jurisdiction Charles S. McCowan Jr. Repository Citation Charles S. McCowan Jr., Civil Procedure -
Louisiana Law Review Volume 17 Number 4 June 1957 Louisiana Practice - Res Judicata - Matters Which Might Have Been Pleaded Burrell J. Carter Repository Citation Burrell J. Carter, Louisiana Practice -
Louisiana Law Review Volume 16 Number 3 April 1956 Corporations - Voting Rights - Classification of Board to Defeat Cumulative Voting James M. Dozier Repository Citation James M. Dozier, Corporations -
Louisiana Law Review Volume 14 Number 3 April 1954 Contracts - Implied Assignment - Article 2011, Louisiana Civil Code of 1870 Charles M. Lanier Repository Citation Charles M. Lanier, Contracts - Implied
Yale Law Journal Volume 18 Issue 7 Yale Law Journal Article 1 1909 UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL-HIS RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES JAMES BARR AMES Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj
Louisiana Law Review Volume 15 Number 4 June 1955 Louisiana Practice - Application of the Exception of Res Judicata in Petitory Actions David M. Ellison Jr. Repository Citation David M. Ellison Jr., Louisiana
Louisiana Law Review Volume 16 Number 2 The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court for the 1954-1955 Term February 1956 Constitutional Law - Applicability of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution
Louisiana Law Review Volume 4 Number 3 March 1942 Venue of Direct Action Against Tortfeasor's Insurer - Louisiana Act 55 of 1930 H. A. M. Jr. Repository Citation H. A. M. Jr., Venue of Direct Action Against
Louisiana Law Review Volume 14 Number 4 Concepts of Legislative Power: A Symposium June 1954 Louisiana Practice -Splitting Causes of Action Charles W. Darnall Jr. Repository Citation Charles W. Darnall
Louisiana Law Review Volume 5 Number 3 December 1943 Mineral Rights - Prescription Aquirendi Causa M. E. C. Repository Citation M. E. C., Mineral Rights - Prescription Aquirendi Causa, 5 La. L. Rev. (1943)
Louisiana Law Review Volume 12 Number 3 March 1952 Creditors' Remedies Against Holders of Watered Stock J. Noland Singletary Repository Citation J. Noland Singletary, Creditors' Remedies Against Holders
Louisiana Law Review Volume 20 Number 4 June 1960 Civil Law Property - The Law of Treasure and Lost Things Gerald L. Walter Jr. Repository Citation Gerald L. Walter Jr., Civil Law Property - The Law of
Louisiana Law Review Volume 31 Number 1 December 1970 Remission of Debt - Donation Not in Authentic Form Donald R. Sharp Repository Citation Donald R. Sharp, Remission of Debt - Donation Not in Authentic
Louisiana Law Review Volume 33 Number 4 ABA Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice - A Student Symposium Summer 1973 The Right of the Indigent Client to Sue His Court- Appointed Attorney for Malpractice
Louisiana Law Review Volume 2 Number 4 May 1940 Measures of Damages - Vendor's Breach of Bond for Deed - Fruits and Revenue of the Land S. W. J. Repository Citation S. W. J., Measures of Damages - Vendor's
Louisiana Law Review Volume 1 Number 3 March 1939 Torts - Liability of Joint Tort-feasors H. B. Repository Citation H. B., Torts - Liability of Joint Tort-feasors, 1 La. L. Rev. (1939) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol1/iss3/15
Louisiana Law Review Volume 46 Number 2 November 1985 Williams v. Winn Dixie: In Consideration of a Compromise's Clause Brett J. Prendergast Repository Citation Brett J. Prendergast, Williams v. Winn Dixie:
Louisiana Law Review Volume 14 Number 1 The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court for the 1952-1953 Term December 1953 Louisiana Practice - Deficiency Judgment Act - Applicability to Surety on Mortgage Note
Louisiana Law Review Volume 11 Number 2 The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court for the 1949-1950 Term January 1951 Private Law: Property Joseph Dainow Repository Citation Joseph Dainow, Private Law: Property,
Louisiana Law Review Volume 38 Number 4 Summer 1978 Appellate Review in Bifurcated Trials Steven A. Glaviano Repository Citation Steven A. Glaviano, Appellate Review in Bifurcated Trials, 38 La. L. Rev.
Louisiana Law Review Volume 20 Number 4 June 1960 Sales - Litigious Redemption - Partial Transfer Jerry W. Millican Repository Citation Jerry W. Millican, Sales - Litigious Redemption - Partial Transfer,
Louisiana Law Review Volume 28 Number 4 June 1968 Civil Procedure - Reconventional Demand - Amount in Dispute James R. Pettway Repository Citation James R. Pettway, Civil Procedure - Reconventional Demand
Louisiana Law Review Volume 28 Number 4 June 1968 Torts - Contributory Negligence as a Matter of Law - Auto Collisions in Smoke, Fog, and Dust Harry M. Zimmerman Jr. Repository Citation Harry M. Zimmerman
Louisiana Law Review Volume 21 Number 2 The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court for the 1959-1960 Term February 1961 Union Enforcement of Individual Employee Rights Arising from a Collective Bargaining
Louisiana Law Review Volume 17 Number 4 June 1957 Sales - Automobiles - Bona Fide Purchaser Doctrine T. Wilson Landry Repository Citation T. Wilson Landry, Sales - Automobiles - Bona Fide Purchaser Doctrine,
Louisiana Law Review Volume 11 Number 4 May 1951 Effective of Responsive Verdict Statute - Indictments - Former Jeopardy Winfred G. Boriack Repository Citation Winfred G. Boriack, Effective of Responsive
Louisiana Law Review Volume 19 Number 4 June 1959 Torts - Duty of Occupier to Social Guests Ben W. Lightfoot Repository Citation Ben W. Lightfoot, Torts - Duty of Occupier to Social Guests, 19 La. L. Rev.
Louisiana Law Review Volume 34 Number 1 Fall 1973 Verbal Abuse and the Aggressor Doctrine Terrence George O'Brien Repository Citation Terrence George O'Brien, Verbal Abuse and the Aggressor Doctrine, 34
Louisiana Law Review Volume 22 Number 2 The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court for the 1960-1961 Term February 1962 Civil Code and Related Subjects: Prescription Joseph Dainow Repository Citation Joseph
Louisiana Law Review Volume 16 Number 1 December 1955 The Effect of the Adoption of the Proposed Uniform Commercial Code on the Negotiable Instruments Law of Louisiana - The Doctrine of Price v. Neal John
Louisiana Law Review Volume 30 Number 2 The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the 1968-1969 Term: A Symposium February 1970 Private Law: Torts William E. Crawford Louisiana State University Law
Louisiana Law Review Volume 16 Number 4 A Symposium on Legislation June 1956 Criminal Law - Felony-Murder - Killing of Co- Felon William L. McLeod Jr. Repository Citation William L. McLeod Jr., Criminal
Louisiana Law Review Volume 18 Number 4 June 1958 Property - Rights of Riparian Owners to Alluvion Formed as a Result of the Works of Man Sidney D. Fazio Repository Citation Sidney D. Fazio, Property -
NOTES AND COMMENTS 243 8 per cent per annum; loans by non-licensees of less than $300.00 at more than 8 per cent per annum), and (2) the statute is a police regulation, State v. Powers, 125 Ohio St. io8,
Louisiana Law Review Volume 15 Number 4 June 1955 Mineral Rights - Interpretation of Lease - Effect of Signing a Division Order William D. Brown III Repository Citation William D. Brown III, Mineral Rights
Louisiana Law Review Volume 8 Number 4 Symposium on Legal Medicine May 1948 Establishment of Servitudes by Destination Alvin B. Gibson Repository Citation Alvin B. Gibson, Establishment of Servitudes by
Louisiana Law Review Volume 36 Number 4 Summer 1976 Identity: A Non-Statutory Exception to Other Crimes Evidence Harry W. Sullivan Jr. Repository Citation Harry W. Sullivan Jr., Identity: A Non-Statutory
Louisiana Law Review Volume 18 Number 1 The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court for the 1956-1957 Term December 1957 Purpose and Extent of the Attorney-Client Privilege in Louisiana William H. Cook Jr.
Louisiana Law Review Volume 35 Number 4 Writing Requirements and the Parol Evidence Rule: A Student Symposium Summer 1975 Judicial Mortgage Rights: Recordation of Non- Executory Judgments Stephen K. Peters
Louisiana Law Review Volume 25 Number 2 Symposium Issue: The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the 1963-1964 Term February 1965 Sales - Partial or Total Destruction of the Thing Under the Contract
Louisiana Law Review Volume 60 Number 2 Winter 2000 Appellate Review of Mixed Questions of Law and Fact: Due Deference to the Fact Finder Edward J. Walters Jr. Darrel J. Papillion Repository Citation Edward
Louisiana Law Review Volume 25 Number 4 June 1965 Corporate Law - Restrictions on Alienability of Stock Marshall B. Brinkley Repository Citation Marshall B. Brinkley, Corporate Law - Restrictions on Alienability
Louisiana Law Review Volume 21 Number 1 Law-Medicine and Professional Responsibility: A Symposium Symposium on Civil Procedure December 1960 Reconventional Demand Hillary J. Crain Repository Citation Hillary
Louisiana Law Review Volume 20 Number 4 June 1960 Criminal Law - Insanity - Burden of Proof Bernard E. Boudreaux Jr. Repository Citation Bernard E. Boudreaux Jr., Criminal Law - Insanity - Burden of Proof,
Louisiana Law Review Volume 5 Number 2 May 1943 Criminal Law - Contributing to the Delinquency of Minors - Adjudgment of Minor as Delinquent as a Prerequisite B. R. D. Repository Citation B. R. D., Criminal
Louisiana Law Review Volume 16 Number 3 April 1956 Criminal Procedure - Defense of Insanity - An Appraisal of State v. Watts Jessie Anne Lennan Repository Citation Jessie Anne Lennan, Criminal Procedure
Louisiana Law Review Volume 25 Number 1 Symposium Issue: Louisiana Legislation of 1964 December 1964 Torts Wex S. Malone Repository Citation Wex S. Malone, Torts, 25 La. L. Rev. (1964) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol25/iss1/12
Louisiana Law Review Volume 4 Number 2 January 1942 Corporations - Ex Parte Appointment of Temporary Receiver - Receivership R. O. R. Repository Citation R. O. R., Corporations - Ex Parte Appointment of
Louisiana Law Review Volume 24 Number 3 April 1964 Status of Unendorsed Instrument Drawn to Maker's Own Order Stanford O. Bardwell Jr. Repository Citation Stanford O. Bardwell Jr., Status of Unendorsed
Louisiana Law Review Volume 11 Number 3 March 1951 Mineral Rights - Servitudes - Interruption of Prescription John V. Parker Repository Citation John V. Parker, Mineral Rights - Servitudes - Interruption
Louisiana Law Review Volume 16 Number 3 April 1956 Conflict of Laws - Jurisdiction of State Courts - Forum Non Conveniens William J. Doran Jr. Repository Citation William J. Doran Jr., Conflict of Laws
Louisiana Law Review Volume 38 Number 3 Spring 1978 Vicarious Liability and Intentional Torts: LeBrane Redefined Billy Joseph Domingue Repository Citation Billy Joseph Domingue, Vicarious Liability and
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 19, 2008 CHERYL L. GRAY v. ALEX V. MITSKY, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 03C-2835 Hamilton V.
Louisiana Law Review Volume 4 Number 3 March 1942 Torts - Indemnification of Joint Tortfeasor Constructively Liable - Contribution and Indemnity Between Joint Tortfeasors G. R. J. Repository Citation G.
Yale Law Journal Volume 16 Issue 2 Yale Law Journal Article 2 1906 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF VESSEL OWNERS Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj Recommended Citation
Louisiana Law Review Volume 30 Number 2 The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the 1968-1969 Term: A Symposium February 1970 Public Law: Expropriation Melvin G. Dakin Repository Citation Melvin
Louisiana Law Review Volume 14 Number 3 April 1954 Conflict of Laws - Characterization of Statutes of Limitation - Full Faith and Credit for Statutes Ronald Lee Davis Repository Citation Ronald Lee Davis,
PATRICK SIMMONS, SR. AND CRYSTAL SIMMONS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR DECEASED MINOR CHILD, ELI SIMMONS, ET AL. VERSUS THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, ET AL.
Louisiana Law Review Volume 21 Number 1 Law-Medicine and Professional Responsibility: A Symposium Symposium on Civil Procedure December 1960 Rendition of Judgements Jack P. Brook Repository Citation Jack
Louisiana Law Review Volume 12 Number 4 May 1952 Security Devices - Personal Liability of Third Party Purchasers Under Revised Statutes 9:5362 C. Alan Lasseigne Repository Citation C. Alan Lasseigne, Security
Louisiana Law Review Volume 8 Number 1 November 1947 Incompetent Persons - Liability of Curator - Custodian Distinguished Otho L. Waltman Jr. Repository Citation Otho L. Waltman Jr., Incompetent Persons
Louisiana Law Review Volume 8 Number 1 November 1947 Natural Servitude of Drainage - Extent of Burden Upon Owner of Servient Estate - Article 660, Louisiana Civil Code of 1870 Edwin C. Schilling Jr. Repository
Louisiana Law Review Volume 25 Number 3 April 1965 Security Devices - Mortgages on Immovables - When Effective Against Third Persons Carl H. Hanchey Repository Citation Carl H. Hanchey, Security Devices
Louisiana Law Review Volume 17 Number 2 The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court for the 1955-1956 Term February 1957 Commercial Law: Negotiable Instruments Paul M. Hebert Repository Citation Paul M. Hebert,
DUNHAM ET AL. V. EATON & H. R. CO. ET AL. Case No. 4,150. [1 Bond, 492.] 1 Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio. Oct. Term, 1861. EQUITY PLEADING ENFORCEMENT OF STOCK SUBSCRIPTIONS DISCLOSURE RECEIVERS. 1. The complainant
Louisiana Law Review Volume 3 Number 3 March 1941 Jurisdiction and Venue of the Action of Nullity in Louisiana Kenneth J. Bailey Repository Citation Kenneth J. Bailey, Jurisdiction and Venue of the Action
Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 16 Issue 4 1965 Agency--Tort Liability of an Ohio Employer for Acts of His Servant--Acts of a Third Person Assisting a Servant (Fox v. Triplett Auto Wrecking, Inc.,
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 5-1-1971 Extension of Liability in the Bailment for Hire Karen Beth Kay Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr
Nebraska Law Review Volume 40 Issue 3 Article 12 1961 Res Judicata Personal Injury and Vehicle Property Damage Arising from a Single Accident John Ilich Jr. University of Nebraska College of Law Follow
Louisiana Law Review Volume 50 Number 1 September 1989 Louisiana Law Review Streamlined Citation Manual Repository Citation Louisiana Law Review Streamlined Citation Manual, 50 La. L. Rev. (1989) Available
Louisiana Law Review Volume 16 Number 1 December 1955 Criminal Procedure - Three-Year Prescription on Indictments William J. Doran Jr. Repository Citation William J. Doran Jr., Criminal Procedure - Three-Year
Louisiana Law Review Volume 22 Number 4 Symposium: Louisiana and the Civil Law June 1962 Evidence - Applicability of Dead Man's Statute to Tort Action Graydon K. Kitchens Jr. Repository Citation Graydon
Louisiana Law Review Volume 12 Number 3 March 1952 Torts - Liability of Automobile Owner for Driver's Negligence Garner R. Miller Repository Citation Garner R. Miller, Torts - Liability of Automobile Owner
Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 10 Issue 3 Article 1 June 1932 Extinguishment of Personal Liability on Mortgage Notes by Merger Glen W. McGrew Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview
Glossary of Terms for Business Law and Ethics MBA 625, Patten University Abusive/Intimidating Behavior Physical threats, false accusations, being annoying, profanity, insults, yelling, harshness, ignoring
Louisiana Law Review Volume 16 Number 4 A Symposium on Legislation June 1956 States - Amenability of State Agency to Suit Billy H. Hines Repository Citation Billy H. Hines, States - Amenability of State
Louisiana Law Review Volume 26 Number 4 June 1966 Jurisdiction in Personam Over Nonresident Corporations Billy J. Tauzin Repository Citation Billy J. Tauzin, Jurisdiction in Personam Over Nonresident Corporations,
Louisiana Law Review Volume 25 Number 2 Symposium Issue: The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the 1963-1964 Term February 1965 Civil Law Property - Alluvion - Distinguishing Lakes Form Rivers