Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

American Security Bank v. Farmers Drier & Storage Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided May 30, 1989No. 87-1377Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKing, Judge

I respectfully concur with the opinion of the majority that affirms the trial court judgment finding Bunge Corporation (hereinafter Bunge) not liable to American Security Bank (hereinafter plaintiff) on the basis that the crop pledge given by Joseph Richard Brunet (hereinafter Brunet) to plaintiff was not properly recorded. Since the crop pledge given by Brunet to plaintiff was not in his full name, I agree that under these circumstances Bunge, as a third party, could not be given sufficient constructive notice of the existence of the crop pledge.

I disagree with the opinion of the majority…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. McDuffie v. WalkerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1909
  2. Harang v. PlattsmierSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1869
  3. Wood v. MorvantLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1975
  4. City Bank and Trust Co. v. Marksville Elevator Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Union Seed & Fertilizer Co. v. J. Supple's Sons Planting Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1916

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API