Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lalakea v. Hilo Sugar Co.

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided April 19, 1904Published

EXCEPTIONS FROM OlRGuiT CoüRT, EOURTH C1RCUIT.

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

GALBRAITH, J.

The plaintiff’s right to maintain this action depends upon his title to the cane, the value of which is the subject of the suit. So far as the record shows his only serious claim to title is through possession taken by virtue of an unrecorded second chattel mortgage not followed by foreclosure proceeding. If as is found by the court recording is necessary to the validity of a chattel mortgage the plaintiff could have acquired no title to the property in the manner claimed and has no standing in court and his exceptions should be overruled.

The sections of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Carpenter v. DexterSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  2. Kelly v. CalhounSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  3. Wright v. BrownHawaii Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Johnson v. Badges Mill & Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1878
  5. Lenehan v. AkanaHawaii Supreme Court · 1884

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

Powered by the Exa API