PER CURIAM.
The principal complaint of counsel for Smit and Dillard seems to be to the ruling of the court on the merits wherein it is held that the validity vel non of the chattel mortgage was of no concern to their clients as their liability did not arise out of the chattel mortgage on the automobile but was purely statutory and arose out of their failure to have procured the affidavit required by Section 8 of Act No. 172 of 1944.
Counsel states that that...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
