G.W. MacFarlane & Co. v. McCandless

• Decision Date: 04 September 1890
• Citation: 8 Haw. 118
• Parties: G. W. MACFARLANE & CO. v. J. S. MCCANDLESS.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

8 Haw. 118

G. W. MACFARLANE & CO. v. J. S. MCCANDLESS.

Supreme Court of Kingdom of Hawai'i.

September 4, 1890

HEARING JUNE 18, 1890. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

APPEAL FROM ORDER OF JUDD, C.J.

Syllabus by the Court

A motion was made to open default. Motion overruled and judgment affirmed, after hearing on motion and argument.

Held that it is a matter of discretion with the Court, and that the hearing on the motion was not an opening of the default.

C. L. Carter and P. Neumann, for plaintiff.

V. V. Ashford, for defendant.

JUDD, C.J., MCCULLY, BICKERTON, DOLE, JJ.

OPINION

BICKERTON, J.

Judgment was obtained by the plaintiffs in this case on the 21st of November last, defendant not answering, and default having been granted by the Court. At the close of the January term a motion was made to set aside default, defendant claiming that service was defective, in that no copy of the petition and summons was left with him by the officer. After hearing, the Chief Justice affirmed the judgment, and the matter now comes here on appeal from that decision.

BY THE COURT.

The question of discretion of the Court has been passed upon by this Court. " An order opening a default is a matter of discretion and not reviewable, except in a clear case of abuse." Bishop vs. Pacific Navigation Co., 7 Hawn. 276. " Whether a Justice will re-open a case for a new hearing after his final decree made and not appealed from is a matter of judicial discretion from which appeal does not lie." Makalei vs. Himeni, 7 Hawn. 168. The statute makes these matters matters in the discretion of the Court. " The Judge or Courtshall have power, however, to open the default in their discretion for good and sufficient reasons." Section 1126, Comp. Laws. But the defendant claims that the Chief Justice opened the default by investigating and examining the case as to the service and the nature of the defense defendant could have availed himself of if he had answered. We do not think this was opening the default, it was only doing what was necessary to be done to enable the Court to see if any injustice was being done the defendant, or if there was any good and sufficient reason why it should exercise its discretion and open the default. The Chief Justice, in his opinion, says: " Having examined this matter fully, I am of opinion that the service was made in all respects as required by law." And, further on, he finds that the defense proposed to be set up, which was in the nature of a set-off, " is an independent matter and ought to be the subject of an independent suit." Consequently the defendant is not deprived of his right to recover on any claim he might have against the plaintiff. The Chief Justice, therefore, found that there was no good and sufficient reason for opening the default, and exercised his discretion in the matter and affirmed the judgment obtained on the default.

The appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the lower Court affirmed.

CONCURRING OPINION

DOLE J.

I have found some difficulty in coming to a conclusion in this cause from the circumstance that the grounds upon which the Chief Justice bases his refusal to open the default appear to me to be erroneous. He says: " I was willing to open the default so far as to see if the defendant had a defense which he could have availed himself of if he had answered, and to allow it if of that character. I find that the plaintiff's claim is for goods sold and delivered-certain iron piping. The defendant's counterclaim or set-off is for the use of a certain artesian well-boring rig. I think under our decisions this is not a matter of set-off, and would not be received as such if the defendant had answered. The off-set must be of the same kind and denomination and ‘ existing in the same right, ’ to which I can give no other meaning than that the off-set must arise in some way from the original transaction between the parties. The use of the well-boring apparatus is an independent matter, and ought to be the subject of an independent...