Bruner v. C. Brewer & Co.
| Decision Date | 03 October 1911 |
| Citation | 20 Haw. 617 |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILLIAM W. BRUNER v. C. BREWER & COMPANY, LIMITED. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST CIRCUIT.
Syllabus by the Court
Under Section 84 of the Organic Act as amended by the Act of Congress of May 27, 1910, a justice is not disqualified from sitting in a cause in which a corporation is a party by the fact of a relative by affinity or consanguinity within the third degree holding shares of stock in the corporation, the justice having no pecuniary interest in the issue of the cause either directly or through such relative.
Under the same section as so amended a justice who while judge of a circuit court made an order which is attacked on appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is disqualified to participate in the hearing of the appeal even though the order was interlocutory and was based on a stipulation of the parties.
C. W. Ashford for plaintiff.
R. B. Anderson for defendant.
ROBERTSON, C.J., PERRY AND DE BOLT, JJ.
The defendant suggests that the chief justice is disqualified from sitting in this case owing to the fact that his mother and his brother own shares of stock in the defendant corporation. Section 84 of the Organic Act, as amended by the Act of Congress of May 27, 1910, providing that “no person shall sit as a judge or juror in any case in which his relative by affinity or by consanguinity within the third degree is interested, either as a plaintiff or defendant, or in the issue of which the said judge or juror has, either directly or through such relative, any pecuniary interest,” is relied upon in support of the suggestion. The precise point of law involved was considered and determined in Ewa Plantation Co. v. Holt, 18 Haw. 509, the conclusion of the court being that “by the terms of Sec. 84 Org. Act a justice is not disqualified from sitting in a cause in which a corporation is a party by the fact of a relative by affinity or consanguinity within the third degree holding shares of stock in the corporation, the justice having no pecuniary interest in the issue of the case either directly or through such relative.” In the present instance, likewise, the chief justice has no pecuniary interest in the issue of the case either directly or through the relatives mentioned.
In an affidavit filed by the defendant it is intimated that the “estate of G. M. Robertson” (referring to the father, now deceased, of the chief justice) is the owner of certain shares of stock in the defendant corporation and that for this additional reason the chief justice is disqualified. The chief justice informs the court and we find that his father's estate does not own any of the stock referred to.
Upon Mr. Justice DeBolt's...
To continue reading
Request your trial