Mendiola v. Aiau

• Decision Date: 14 July 1926
• Docket Number: No. 1688.,1688.
• Parties: LIZZIE K. MENDIOLA, SUBSTITUTED FOR LILIA K. KAIKOO, DECEASED, v. JONATHAN AIAU, ROSE K. AIAU, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR JONATHAN HAUKEIKELANI AIAU, AND JONATHAN HAUKEIKELANI AIAU.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

29 Haw. 340

LIZZIE K. MENDIOLA, SUBSTITUTED FOR LILIA K. KAIKOO, DECEASED,

v.JONATHAN AIAU, ROSE K. AIAU, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR JONATHAN HAUKEIKELANI AIAU, AND JONATHAN HAUKEIKELANI AIAU.

No. 1688.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawai‘i.

Submitted June 18, 1926.

Decided July 14, 1926.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREAPPEALS FROM CIRCUIT JUDGE FIRST CIRCUIT. HON. J. R. DESHA, JUDGE.

Syllabus by the Court

A motion to set aside a decree in equity and to reopen the case for the adduction of further evidence is properly refused when the so-called newly-discovered evidence is merely impeaching in character and when the testimony of the witness sought to be impeached was not relied upon by the trial judge in making his findings of fact.

A court of equity has power to order the grantees under a fraudulent deed to execute a reconveyance of the property and to enforce its order by a commitment to prison.

Smith & Wild for petitioner.

E. K. Aiu for respondents.

PERRY, C. J., LINDSAY AND BANKS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY PERRY, C. J.

This is a suit in equity, praying for the cancellation of a deed and reconveyance of the property on the ground that the deed was obtained by fraud. After trial on the merits, the circuit judge granted the prayer of the petition and a decree was entered ordering the respondents to reconvey. From that decree an appeal was taken to this court; but subsequently the appeal was voluntarily dismissed by the appellants. Thereafter the respondents moved in the trial court that the decree be set aside and that the case be reopened for the adduction of further evidence. The ground of this motion was that one Manuia, who had been called as a witness on behalf of the petitioner, had after the trial told the affiants whose affidavits were filed in support of the motion that certain testimony given by him at the trial was false. The trial court, i. e., the same judge who heard and decided the case on its merits, denied the motion and ordered the respondents to execute a deed of reconveyance which was submitted by the petitioner. Upon the respondents' refusing to execute the deed they were committed to jail, there to remain until they should comply with the order. The case is now before us on two appeals of the respondents, one from the denial of the motion to reopen and the other from the order committing them to jail.

The decision of a motion to reopen the decree and to receive further evidence is at best a matter in the discretion of the trial judge. Such a decision, either granting or refusing the motion, has been held not to be appealable at all. Makalei v. Himeni, 7 Haw. 168, 169; Nakeu v. Mahaulu, 22 Haw. 750, 752. Moreover, there certainly was no abuse of discretion in this instance. There was no affidavit by Manuia to the effect that his testimony upon a further...