Okuu v. Kaiaikawaha
| Decision Date | 01 July 1888 |
| Citation | 7 Haw. 311 |
| Parties | J. OKUU v. J. N. KAIAIKAWAHA. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
ON EXCEPTIONS FROM MR. JUSTICE DOLE.
Syllabus by the Court
Where exceptions to the rulings of the Court in the progress of a trial are taken and perfected according to the Statute and Rules, it is not necessary to supplement them by an exception to the verdict, and a motion for a new trial on these grounds.
In an action of replevin evidence was offered tending to show that a bill of sale of the chattels in suit, from defendant to plaintiff, absolute on its face, was in fact a mortgage.
Held such evidence was rightly excluded.
A Rosa, for plaintiff.
W. A Kinney, for defendant.
OPINION
This is an action of replevin tried at the last term of this Court. An exception was taken to the rulings of Mr. Justice Dole, presiding, in excluding evidence offered by the defendant tending to show that the bill of sale, absolute on its face, which conveyed the chattels in suit from defendant to plaintiff, was given merely to secure a loan of fifty dollars, and was in fact a mortgage delivered by defendant and wife on that understanding, and received by plaintiff as such.
On the exclusion of this evidence, the defendant closed and the Court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, which was rendered.
The formal exception to the verdict, as contrary to law and the evidence, was made after the jury was discharged, and by Rule VIII.B. was too late. Counsel for plaintiff moved to strike the bill of exceptions from the calendar on this ground. We hold that where exceptions are taken in the progress of the trial before a jury and perfected according to the statute and rules, it is not necessary to supplement them by an exception to the verdict, and by a motion for a new trial on this ground.
The question presented by the exception which was taken and perfected, is whether a court of law is authorized to receive a purely equitable defense? Section 1108 of the Civil Code authorizes the defendant in a civil action to give in evidence any matter of law or fact whatever. Under this authority this Court held in Kamohai vs. Kahele, 3 Hawn. Rep., 530, that equitable estoppels (so called because first recognized in courts of equity), or estoppels by conduct, might be received in courts of law.
But to go further and allow at law the terms of a deed to be varied by parol would be to violate a fundamental principle. The principle is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Molokai Ranch, Ltd. v. Morris
...of this court constitute a defense to an action in ejectment at law. (Magoon v. Kapiolani Estate, 22 Haw. 510, 516. See also Okuu v. Kaiaikawaha, 7 Haw. 311, 312.) An equitable title to real estate is purely equitable in nature and indicative of a remedy peculiar to a court of equity; the d......
-
Magoon v. Kapiolani Estate, Ltd.
...absolute on its face was intended to be a mortgage may not be availed of in an action at law. Warvelle on Ejectment, Sec. 262; Okuu v. Kaiaikawaha, 7 Haw. 311; Hoy v. Raymond, 19 Haw. 568. But the case at bar does not present a claim of an equitable estoppel. There was no representation or ......
-
Magoon v. Kapiolani Estate, Ltd.
...absolute on its face was intended to be a mortgage may not be availed of in an action at law. Warvelle on Ejectment, Sec. 262; Okuu v. Kaiaikawaha, 7 Haw. 311; Ah Hoy v. Raymond, 19 Haw. 568. But the case at bar does not present a claim of an equitable estoppel. There was no representation ......
-
Bonacon v. Wax
...exceptions duly taken during trial by one to the verdict or to duplicate them in the grounds of a motion for new trial. (Okuu v. Kaiaikawaha, 7 Haw. 311; Luka v. Poohina, 3 Haw. 728.)Hence, the contention that a waiver arises from an omission in a motion after verdict is untenable in so far......