1 Haw. 79 (Haw.Super. 1852), Ewing v. Janion
|Citation:||1 Haw. 79|
|Opinion Judge:||LEE, CHIEF JUSTICE|
|Party Name:||A. ORR EWING AND WILLIAM MILLER v. R. C. JANION.|
|Case Date:||July 01, 1852|
|Court:||Superior Court of Hawai'i|
Syllabus by the Court
The Equity side of the Court having rightful jurisdiction of a matter, will, after discovery, proceed to give relief, in order to avoid the multiplicity of suits.
An acknowledgment made before the Lord Provost, Mayor, or other chief magistrate of any large city in Great Britain, France, or the United States, or before a Notary Public, and duly authenticated under his hand and official seal, is sufficient evidence of the execution of a deed, or power of attorney.
The bill filed in this suit alleges that the defendant as one of the late firm of Messrs. Starkey, Janion & Co. has in his possession certain goods and moneys belonging to the complainants, who reside in Glasgow, Scotland, for which he refuses to account, prays that he may be compelled to account therefor, & c.
On the final hearing, it was contended that the bill is merely a bill of discovery, and that on the coming in of the defendant's answer, the case, as far as the equity side of this Court is concerned, is brought to an end. We entertain a different opinion. The bill, while it seeks a discovery of the facts as to the receipts, sale, & c., of the goods, also prays that the defendant may be made to account for such goods. Now this suit, as we have shown in a former decision, is clearly one over which the equity side of this Court has rightful jurisdiction; and once having jurisdiction, it is a well settled principle, that the Court ought to proceed to give relief, in order to avoid the multiplicity of suits. " The jurisdiction having once attached, it shall be made effectual for the purposes of complete relief." (1 Story's Eq. Jur. p. 82, §64, K.) But it is said by the counsel for the defendant, that granting it to be true that relief is ancillary to discovery, yet the complainant's case must fall to the ground; for the defendant by his answer has made no discovery; and the bill should be dismissed with costs. We are of the opinion, however, that the defendant's answer, and his deposition made before the Master, do make a discovery, and that too, sufficient, in connecnection with the other proofs to require the Court to proceed to a decree.
But the demand for an...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP