Aiau v. Aiau, 2735.
| Decision Date | 21 August 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 2735.,2735. |
| Parties | JOSEPH A. AIAU, HORNER A. AIAU AND FRANCES S. L. TYAU, TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF LOIKA AIAU, DECEASED v. ROSE K. AIAU. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREAPPEAL FROM CIRCUIT JUDGE FIRST CIRCUIT, HON. W. C. MOORE, JUDGE.
Syllabus by the Court
An appeal from a decree in equity warrants dismissal where the opening brief of appellant not only violates the purpose of such appeal but so flagrantly violates appellate rule requiring a specification of the errors relied upon as grounds of reversal that the appeal itself has no efficacy.
W. Y. Char ( Sau Ung Chan with him on the briefs) for petitioners-appellants.
A. K. Trask (also on the brief) for respondent-appellee.
This is an action to quiet the titles of two contiguous parcels of land. It involves a family controversy covering a period of more than sixty years and arising out of doubtful meanings of parts of deeds and other documentary evidence as introduced at the trial by witnesses whose testimony is largely conflicting.
After extensive trial the presiding judge in equity entered a decree quieting the title of one parcel favorably, and that of the other adversely, to the appellants. The appellants appeal from the portion of the decree which is adverse to them.
On oral argument the appellee raised and argued the question whether or not the opening brief of appellants warrants dismissal of appeal for failure to contain “a specification of the errors which are relied upon” as required by rule 3 (d) of rules of supreme court, 38 Haw. 677. The appellants ignored the question so raised and argued. But this court deems it of sufficient importance to be considered.
The opening brief of appellants on its face patently violates the rule. It contains no specification of any error -- much less one of “the errors * * * relied upon” as grounds of reversal within the meaning of the rule. (Rule 3 [[[d], Rules Sup. Ct., supra.) Nor are any parts of it susceptible of being construed as a reasonable and substantial compliance with the rule's requirement. On the contrary, the brief throughout is argumentative and constitutes a presentation of the appellants' side of the case as it stood before judgment below which an advocate of that side properly could have argued to the trial court at the close of trial. But it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pokini
...the same dereliction on the part of counsel. The significance of the specification of errors seems not to be appreciated. See Aiau v. Aiau, 39 Haw. 122; Territory v. Meyer, 37 Haw. 102, aff'd 9 Cir., 164 F.2d 845; Lazarus v. Lazarus, 12 Haw. 369, The above-cited rule requires that the speci......
-
McCaw v. Tax Comm'r Hawai`i
...33, the latter not even included in the specifications of error, are deemed to have, severally, been abandoned or waived. (See also Aiau v. Aiau, 39 Haw. 122,Watumull v. Tax Commissioner, 34 Haw. 84;U. S. v. Los Angeles Soap Co., 83 F. [2d] 875, 889 [9 C. C. A.]; Humphreys Gold Corporation ......
-
Alamida v. Wilson
...Cf., Ala Moana Boat Owners' Ass'n v. State, 50 Haw. 156, 434 P.2d 516 (1967); State v. Pokini, 45 Haw. 295, 367 P.2d 499 (1961); Aiau v. Aiau, 39 Haw. 122 (1951); Territory v. Meyer, 37 Haw. 102 (1945), aff'd 164 F.2d 845 (9 Cir. Affirmed. 1 Gordon Morse was originally sued as Holo Holo U-D......
-
Ala Moana Boat Owners' Ass'n v. State
...in its opening brief merits dismissal of the appeal. See State v. Pokini, 45 Haw. 295, 367 P.2d 499, 89 A.L.R.2d 1421 (1961); Aiau v. Aiau, 39 Haw. 122 (1951); and Territory v. Meyer, 37 Haw. 102 (1945), affirmed 9 Cir. 164 F.2d 845. As stated in Territory v. Meyer, 'Furthermore, the appell......