minority rule in Louisiana

2004In this regard, Louisiana has followed the minority rule that such prior inconsistent statements "simply do not constitute substantive evidence." State v. Allien, 366 So.2d 1308, 1311 (La.1978); State v. Owunta, 99-1569, p. 1 (La.5/26/00), 761 So.2d 528, 529 .

1962In considering this common law approach contended for by appellants, it can only be said that the extreme importance of maintaining the stability of titles that is provided for in Articles 2275 and 2440 of the LSA-Civil Code and in the landmark case of McDuffie v. Walker, 125 La. 152 , 51 So. 100 , cannot be overemphasized.

1962In considering this common law approach contended for by appellants, it can only be said that the extreme importance of maintaining the stability of titles that is provided for in Articles 2275 and 2440 of the LSA-Civil Code and in the landmark case of McDuffie v. Walker, 125 La. 152 , 51 So. 100 , cannot be overemphasized.

1961The defendant would have us adopt the minority rule expressed in the case of Botta v. Brunner, 26 N.J. 82 , 138 A.2d 713 , 60 A.L.R.2d 1331 .

1961The defendant would have us adopt the minority rule expressed in the case of Botta v. Brunner, 26 N.J. 82 , 138 A.2d 713 , 60 A.L.R.2d 1331 .

1960The position of the courts adhering to the majority rule is thus stated in Robinson v. Campbell, 1878, 47 Iowa 625 , where it was contended the affluence and pecuniary condition of the defendants justified the amount of the charge, the court held that the evidence was improper, and that the circumstances of the defendants did not constitute an element in fixing the services, saying: "There is no more reason why this charge should be enhanced on account of the ability of the defendants to pay than that the merchant should charge them more for a yard of cloth, or the druggist for filling a presc

1950To satisfy this burden, the holder is required to disclose the facts that are peculiarly within his knowledge tending to show his good faith, or, as it is sometimes expressed, he must show all the circumstances under which he took the paper, with a view to determining his good faith as a holder; * * The following quotation from Judge Higgins’ opinion in the case of Tolmas v. Norwood, 15 La.App. 492 , 132 So. 148 , shows that the Louisiana Courts have followed this rule for many years: “In the case of Steeg v. Codifer, 157 La. 298 , 102 So. 407, 409 , the Supreme Court said: ‘As between the mak

1950To satisfy this burden, the holder is required to disclose the facts that are peculiarly within his knowledge tending to show his good faith, or, as it is sometimes expressed, he must show all the circumstances under which he took the paper, with a view to determining his good faith as a holder; * * The following quotation from Judge Higgins’ opinion in the case of Tolmas v. Norwood, 15 La.App. 492 , 132 So. 148 , shows that the Louisiana Courts have followed this rule for many years: “In the case of Steeg v. Codifer, 157 La. 298 , 102 So. 407, 409 , the Supreme Court said: ‘As between the mak

1950To satisfy this burden, the holder is required to disclose the facts that are peculiarly within his knowledge tending to show his good faith, or, as it is sometimes expressed, he must show all the circumstances under which he took the paper, with a view to determining his good faith as a holder; * * The following quotation from Judge Higgins’ opinion in the case of Tolmas v. Norwood, 15 La.App. 492 , 132 So. 148 , shows that the Louisiana Courts have followed this rule for many years: “In the case of Steeg v. Codifer, 157 La. 298 , 102 So. 407, 409 , the Supreme Court said: ‘As between the mak

1950To satisfy this burden, the holder is required to disclose the facts that are peculiarly within his knowledge tending to show his good faith, or, as it is sometimes expressed, he must show all the circumstances under which he took the paper, with a view to determining his good faith as a holder; * * The following quotation from Judge Higgins’ opinion in the case of Tolmas v. Norwood, 15 La.App. 492 , 132 So. 148 , shows that the Louisiana Courts have followed this rule for many years: “In the case of Steeg v. Codifer, 157 La. 298 , 102 So. 407, 409 , the Supreme Court said: ‘As between the mak

1940The contrary doctrine, and the one which we believe reflects the sounder view, is that it violates no public policy of the state to enforce, as against' those included within the protection of the local statute, a mortgage executed upon the property in another state prior to its surreptitious re.moval therefrom, even though the mortgage is not recorded in the state to which the property is removed and where the subsequent transactions occur. *224 In Motor Investment Co. v. Breslauer, 64 Cal.App. 230 , 221 P. 700, 703 , the Court made the following appropriate comment on the rule protecting the

1940The contrary doctrine, and the one which we believe reflects the sounder view, is that it violates no public policy of the state to enforce, as against' those included within the protection of the local statute, a mortgage executed upon the property in another state prior to its surreptitious re.moval therefrom, even though the mortgage is not recorded in the state to which the property is removed and where the subsequent transactions occur. *224 In Motor Investment Co. v. Breslauer, 64 Cal.App. 230 , 221 P. 700, 703 , the Court made the following appropriate comment on the rule protecting the

1939The other case, which is frequently pointed to, is Devant v. Pecou, 13 La.App. 594 , 128 So. 700 , but that case also was decided long before the enactment of the statute of 1936 I am concerned with the effect of the establishment in Louisiana of the minority doctrine.

1939The other case, which is frequently pointed to, is Devant v. Pecou, 13 La.App. 594 , 128 So. 700 , but that case also was decided long before the enactment of the statute of 1936 I am concerned with the effect of the establishment in Louisiana of the minority doctrine.

1939The cases setting out the minority rule, and which are relied upon by defendant Insurance Company, are: Johnson v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, 158 Misc. 758 , 285 N.Y.S. 574, 580 .

1939The cases setting out the minority rule, and which are relied upon by defendant Insurance Company, are: Johnson v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, 158 Misc. 758 , 285 N.Y.S. 574, 580 .

1936Cases holding to the contrary, few in number, constitute the minority rule. 9 Blashfield’s Cyc. of Automobile Law & Practice (Permanent Ed.) §§ 5966, 5967; Smith v. Vellino (La.App.) 156 So. 61 ; Rossville Commercial Alcohol Corporation v. Dennis Sheen Transfer Co., 18 La.App. 725 , 138 So. 183, 186 ; Hebert v. Kingston Lumber Co., 126 La. 775 , 52 So. 1021 ; Robertson v. Town of Jennings, •128 La. 795, 55 So., 375 .

1936Cases holding to the contrary, few in number, constitute the minority rule. 9 Blashfield’s Cyc. of Automobile Law & Practice (Permanent Ed.) §§ 5966, 5967; Smith v. Vellino (La.App.) 156 So. 61 ; Rossville Commercial Alcohol Corporation v. Dennis Sheen Transfer Co., 18 La.App. 725 , 138 So. 183, 186 ; Hebert v. Kingston Lumber Co., 126 La. 775 , 52 So. 1021 ; Robertson v. Town of Jennings, •128 La. 795, 55 So., 375 .

1936Cases holding to the contrary, few in number, constitute the minority rule. 9 Blashfield’s Cyc. of Automobile Law & Practice (Permanent Ed.) §§ 5966, 5967; Smith v. Vellino (La.App.) 156 So. 61 ; Rossville Commercial Alcohol Corporation v. Dennis Sheen Transfer Co., 18 La.App. 725 , 138 So. 183, 186 ; Hebert v. Kingston Lumber Co., 126 La. 775 , 52 So. 1021 ; Robertson v. Town of Jennings, •128 La. 795, 55 So., 375 .

1936Cases holding to the contrary, few in number, constitute the minority rule. 9 Blashfield’s Cyc. of Automobile Law & Practice (Permanent Ed.) §§ 5966, 5967; Smith v. Vellino (La.App.) 156 So. 61 ; Rossville Commercial Alcohol Corporation v. Dennis Sheen Transfer Co., 18 La.App. 725 , 138 So. 183, 186 ; Hebert v. Kingston Lumber Co., 126 La. 775 , 52 So. 1021 ; Robertson v. Town of Jennings, •128 La. 795, 55 So., 375 .

1936Cases holding to the contrary, few in number, constitute the minority rule. 9 Blashfield’s Cyc. of Automobile Law & Practice (Permanent Ed.) §§ 5966, 5967; Smith v. Vellino (La.App.) 156 So. 61 ; Rossville Commercial Alcohol Corporation v. Dennis Sheen Transfer Co., 18 La.App. 725 , 138 So. 183, 186 ; Hebert v. Kingston Lumber Co., 126 La. 775 , 52 So. 1021 ; Robertson v. Town of Jennings, •128 La. 795, 55 So., 375 .

1936Cases holding to the contrary, few in number, constitute the minority rule. 9 Blashfield’s Cyc. of Automobile Law & Practice (Permanent Ed.) §§ 5966, 5967; Smith v. Vellino (La.App.) 156 So. 61 ; Rossville Commercial Alcohol Corporation v. Dennis Sheen Transfer Co., 18 La.App. 725 , 138 So. 183, 186 ; Hebert v. Kingston Lumber Co., 126 La. 775 , 52 So. 1021 ; Robertson v. Town of Jennings, •128 La. 795, 55 So., 375 .

1936Cases holding to the contrary, few in number, constitute the minority rule. 9 Blashfield’s Cyc. of Automobile Law & Practice (Permanent Ed.) §§ 5966, 5967; Smith v. Vellino (La.App.) 156 So. 61 ; Rossville Commercial Alcohol Corporation v. Dennis Sheen Transfer Co., 18 La.App. 725 , 138 So. 183, 186 ; Hebert v. Kingston Lumber Co., 126 La. 775 , 52 So. 1021 ; Robertson v. Town of Jennings, •128 La. 795, 55 So., 375 .

1933However, there is a minority rule to the contrary, and it is contended that the minority rule prevails in Louisiana, relying on the case of King v. Preston & Hall, 11 La.