H. Hackfeld & Co. v. Medcalf

Hawaii Supreme Court March 1, 1910

H. Hackfeld & Co. v. Medcalf, 20 Haw. 56 (Haw. 1910)

1910 Haw. LEXIS 60

Bolt, Hartwell, Perry

Opinion of the Court

Per curiam:

The petition discloses nothing

which has been overlooked or misunderstood or which has not been carefully considered by the court. It is possible that in arguing that it Avas immaterial Avhether the license was taken out for Hilo or for Waiohinu, counsel inadvertently led the court to infer that it was taken out for Hilo, although he argued that the performance alleged was sufficient to require the inference that the license Avas taken out for Waiohinu; but we Avere of the opinion that in this respect the bill on demurrer was bad for uncertainty. Petition denied without argument.

Reference

Full Case Name: H. HACKFELD AND COMPANY, LIMITED, A CORPORATION v. FRANK A. MEDCALF, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN KAI AKINA, DECEASED MELE KAHANA, AND S. K. KAHANA, HER HUSBAND, D. D. ROTONO KAI AND MANOA KAI, HIS WIFE, KAHILO MEDCALF AND FRANK A. MEDCALF, HER HUSBAND, JOHN KAI JR., AND ANNIE AKAMU KAI, HIS WIFE KAWAAUHAU AKINA, WIDOW OF J. K. AKINA JR., DECEASED MARIA KAI, AND JOHN KAIU, WILLIAM KAI AND DAVID KALUNA KAI, MINOR CHILDREN OF J. K. AKINA JR., DECEASED AND HATTIE KAWAAUHAU AKINA, GUARDIAN OF SAID MINORS, AND FIRST BANK OF HILO, LIMITED, A CORPORATION
Status: Published