Un Wo Sang Co. v. Alo

• Decision Date: 01 July 1889
• Citation: 7 Haw. 673
• Parties: THE UN WO SANG CO. v. T. ALO, ET AL.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

7 Haw. 673

THE UN WO SANG CO. v. T. ALO, ET AL.

Supreme Court of Kingdom of Hawai'i.

July 1, 1889.

ON MOTION TO STRIKE CASE FROM CALENDAR.

Syllabus by the Court

An Appeal in Equity was taken before the decree was signed Held, the appeal is from the decree and not the decision, and in this case it was taken before the matter was appealable.

The Court allowed the appeal to be considered as made nunc pro tunc in the interests of justice.

A. S Hartwell, for plaintiffs, appellants.

C. L Carter and P. Neumann, for defendants, appellees.

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

OPINION

MCCULLY, J.

The proceedings on a bill in equity in this case having been had before the Chief Justice, he filed, on the 15th of June, a written " decision, " concluding with the words " and therefore the bill must be dismissed, " signed by the Chief Justice. On the 17th the plaintiffs' counsel filed " notice of appeal:" " The plaintiffs appeal from the decree herein made dismissing their bill of complaint to the Supreme Court in Banco; " and on the 19th paid costs and filed bond as required in appeals. On the 20th was filed a formal decree, concluding that " it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiffs' said bill of complaint be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the defendant to be taxed, " likewise signed by the Chief Justice.

Upon the case being called at the July term session of the Court in Banco, the defendants moved that the case be stricken from the calendar on the ground that there had been no appeal taken from the decree filed June 20th, within ten days (or indeed at all).

BY THE COURT.

The " decision" of the Chief Justice is in the mode usual in this Court, and in the courts of the other countries whose systems of jurisprudence we follow, in cases where a written opinion is given.

It sets out succinctly the allegations and prayers of the bill and answer, and gives a statement of the evidence, with the result and effect of it upon the mind of the Court, and the conclusions of fact and law to which they lead, which in this case was that the " plaintiffs' bill must be dismissed." Such a decision or opinion might have been and not infrequently is, rendered orally. The contention of the appellant is that this was a decree or equivalent to a decree; and a sufficient disposition of the case, if no further decree or decision had been signed, to be pleadable in bar of another bill setting forth the matters so decided, and that as a decided case, an appeal might be taken from the decision. The force of this claim lies chiefly in the approximation, in this case, of what is expressed in the conclusion of the opinion to what is set forth in the...