Legal Opinion

Shantilal Bros. v. KMST Wholesale, Inc.

High Court of American Samoa

Decided September 7, 1990No. CA No. 87-88Published

1Opinion of the Court

On Motion for Reconsideration:

Intervenor Nelson & Robertson Pty., Ltd. moves for reconsideration of our holding that plaintiff Shantilal Brothers, Ltd., is entitled to the proceeds of a judicial sale of certain property belonging to the defendant. This holding was based on our finding that intervenor’s chattel mortgage did not contain "a description of the specific article [or] *104articles . . . mortgaged" within the meaning of A.S.C.A. § 27.1510(c). Plaintiff, a judgment creditor without actual notice of the chattel mortgage, was therefore entitled to execute its judgment by seizing and selling…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bennett v. GreenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
  2. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v. StockdaleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
  3. United States v. United Aircraft CorporationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1948
  4. Childress v. First State Bank of BarnhartCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
  5. Nat'l. Bank of Panama v. Nat'l. Bank of ChipleySupreme Court of Florida · 1925

3 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