Boyd v. Kaikainahaole

10 Haw. 456, 1896 Haw. LEXIS 71
CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 22, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 Haw. 456 (Boyd v. Kaikainahaole) 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
Boyd v. Kaikainahaole, 10 Haw. 456, 1896 Haw. LEXIS 71 (haw 1896).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

FREAR, J.

Tbis is an action for $107.45, tbe balance alleged to be dne plaintiff from defendant for services rendered in superintending tbe erection of certain buildings, transferring a mortgage, drawing a will, and paying bills. Tbe plaintiff recovered judgment for $95.00 besides interest and costs in tbe District Court of Honolulu and on defendant’s appeal to tbe Circuit Court obtained a verdict • there for tbe same amount. At tbe trial tbe plaintiff admitted on cross-examination tbat be bad received from tbe contractors, a Chinese company, $100.00 as a consideration for securing for them tbe contract for tbe erection of tbe buildings. Defendant’s counsel thereupon moved tbe presiding judge to' allow tbis $100.00 as a set-off and to instruct tbe jury to find for the defendant. This tbe judge refused to do, on tbe ground tbat tbe set-off was not pleaded, and tbe case comes here on an exception to tbis refusal. Counsel did not amend bis answer by adding a plea of set-off, although, as we understand, tbe judge intimated tbat be might do so.

A claim of set-off should be specially pleaded; if not pleaded or submitted to tbe jury it is not res adjudicada and may. be made tbe subject of a separate action. Lopez v. McChesney, [457]*457ante, p. 225. We are informed by defendant’s counsel tbat a separate action bas already been brought upon tbe claim in question and tbat be merely desires assurance tbat tbe claim is not res adjudícala.

/?. K. Kane, for plaintiff. J. L. Katilulwu, for defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Yeiichi Miyashiro v. Yap
27 Haw. 297 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1923)
Hakalau Plantation Co. v. Kahuena
14 Haw. 189 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Haw. 456, 1896 Haw. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-kaikainahaole-haw-1896.