Ahoy v. Raymond

Hawaii Supreme Court

Ahoy v. Raymond

19 Haw. 627, 1909 Haw. LEXIS 75

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 13, 1909

DocketNo. 25

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Haw. 627 (Ahoy v. Raymond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ahoy v. Raymond, 19 Haw. 627, 1909 Haw. LEXIS 75 (haw 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam:

The parol evidence tending to show that the assignment of the lease was “as security only” was brought out on cross-examination by defendant, but the instructions leaving the jury at liberty to find, upon that evidence, that the assignment was inoperative as such, [628]*628were given over defendant’s objection. The evidence of ab scnce of consideration for the bill of sale, while not admissible for the purpose of defeating the operation of the instrument, was admissible, with other evidence, in support of an attempt to show that the instrument was obtained by fraud. In the opinion read as a whole, with the syllabus, it is so held. The other grounds of the petition do not need mention. The petition for rehearing is denied without argument under Rule 5.

Gat heart & Milverton for plaintiff. A. G. M. Robertson for defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per curiam:

The parol evidence tending to show that the assignment of the lease was “as security only” was brought out on cross-examination by defendant, but the instructions leaving the jury at liberty to find, upon that evidence, that the assignment was inoperative as such, [628]*628were given over defendant’s objection. The evidence of ab scnce of consideration for the bill of sale, while not admissible for the purpose of defeating the operation of the instrument, was admissible, with other evidence, in support of an attempt to show that the instrument was obtained by fraud. In the opinion read as a whole, with the syllabus, it is so held. The other grounds of the petition do not need mention. The petition for rehearing is denied without argument under Rule 5.

Gat heart & Milverton for plaintiff. A. G. M. Robertson for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Haw. 627, 1909 Haw. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahoy-v-raymond-haw-1909.