Kendall v. Holloway

• Decision Date: 18 July 1904
• Citation: 16 Haw. 45
• Parties: H. KENDALL v. C. S. HOLLOWAY, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, T. R. LUCAS, C. LUCAS AND J. LUCAS, PARTNERS UNDER THE NAME OF LUCAS BROTHERS.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

16 Haw. 45

H. KENDALL

v.C. S. HOLLOWAY, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, T. R. LUCAS, C. LUCAS AND J. LUCAS, PARTNERS UNDER THE NAME OF LUCAS BROTHERS.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawai‘i.

Submitted July 15, 1904.

Decided July 18, 1904.

APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT JUDGE, FIRST CIRCUIT.

Syllabus by the Court

A bill in equity should not be dismissed in the appellate court merely because its title and address describe the court as the “Circuit Judge” without the words “at Chambers”.

Leave to file a transcript of the evidence is denied for noncompliance with rule 4 of the Court.

Ballou & Marx for plaintiff.

M. F. Prosser, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant Holloway.

FREAR, C.J., HARTWELL, J., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE GEAR IN PLACE OF HATCH, J., DISQUALIFIED.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR, C.J.

This is an appeal by the defendant Holloway from a decree enjoining him as Superintendent of Public Works and the other defendants as contractors from entering into a proposed contract under which the latter defendants were to construct a school building and two dormitories at Lahainaluna, Maui, for the sum of $35,516, in accordance with a tender made by them in response to an advertisement by the Superintendent calling for tenders,—the ground of the injunction being that after advertisement a change was made in the specifications without a new advertisement.

In this court the appellant moved for the first time to dismiss the bill on the ground that it was not brought in any court having jurisdiction thereof—the argument being that it was before the Circuit Judge whereas it should have been before the Circuit Judge at Chambers. It is contended that this, as a question of jurisdiction, may be raised at any stage in the case. Jurisdiction was in fact taken by the Circuit Judge at Chambers. The summons was a chambers summons. The bill is in the usual form of a bill in equity and therefore cognizable only by a Circuit Judge at Chambers. It is also entitled a bill for an injunction and the answers are further entitled in equity. The only foundation for the contention made seems to be that the description of the court in the title is “Before a Circuit Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, Territory of Hawaii” without the words “at Chambers” and that the bill is addressed “To the First Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, Territory of Hawaii” without the words “at Chambers”. The address need not contain the words “at chambers”. It has been customary here as well as elsewhere to address bills in equity to the judge or the chancellor without the words “at chambers” and there is nothing in our statutes requiring a different practice. As to the description of the court in the title, the statute makes no specific requirement. The contention is that the words “at chambers” are essential because the statute confers the jurisdiction upon the “Circuit Judges at Chambers” and not upon the “Circuit Judges.” (C. L., Sec. 1145, as amended by Laws of 1903, Act 32, Sec. 11; Hind v....