Salevai Ah Hing v. Manuma

High Court of American Samoa

Salevai Ah Hing v. Manuma

4 Am. Samoa 56

High Court of American Samoa·Decided January 28, 1972·No. No. 1101·Published

Opinion

The evidence submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff herein established:

1. The land in question was originally assigned in 1946 by Aifa’i Fagaima acting as the duly appointed representative of the matai to Ropati and Caroline Manuma and their children.

2. That at the time of the assignment in 1946 Aifa’i Fagaima, as a matter of courtesy, consulted with to be assigned, but such consultation was not required to make a valid assignment.

3. That the assignment made was unconditional and final.

4. That the Plaintiff herein failed to establish any factual or legal grounds upon which an action for eviction of the Defendants could be maintained.

[57]*57IT IS THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

I

The motion to dismiss is hereby granted with prejudice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The evidence submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff herein established:

1. The land in question was originally assigned in 1946 by Aifa’i Fagaima acting as the duly appointed representative of the matai to Ropati and Caroline Manuma and their children.

2. That at the time of the assignment in 1946 Aifa’i Fagaima, as a matter of courtesy, consulted with to be assigned, but such consultation was not required to make a valid assignment.

3. That the assignment made was unconditional and final.

4. That the Plaintiff herein failed to establish any factual or legal grounds upon which an action for eviction of the Defendants could be maintained.

[57]*57IT IS THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

I

The motion to dismiss is hereby granted with prejudice.

Salevai Ah Hing v. Manuma, 4 Am. Samoa 56 (amsamoa 1972).

Pincite

4 Am. Samoa 56 (Salevai Ah Hing v. Manuma) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.