Byrne v. Orpheum Co.

Hawaii Supreme Court

Byrne v. Orpheum Co.

16 Haw. 786

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 27, 1904

DocketNo. 57

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 Haw. 786 (Byrne v. Orpheum Co.) 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

Byrne v. Orpheum Co., 16 Haw. 786 (haw 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam:

The defendant’s contention that section 1145, C. L., as amended by act 32, Laws of 1903, pp. 203, 204, repeals by implication the provisions of sections 1242, 1243 and 1244, C. L., is not sustained, the amended section not purporting to be exclusive and the sections referred to being in no respect inconsistent therewith. The order of default was authorized by the showing made, and it does not appear that in refusing to open the default there was any abuse of discretion, no meritorious defense having been suggested other than a verified answer. The appeal is dismissed.

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

Per curiam:

The defendant’s contention that section 1145, C. L., as amended by act 32, Laws of 1903, pp. 203, 204, repeals by implication the provisions of sections 1242, 1243 and 1244, C. L., is not sustained, the amended section not purporting to be exclusive and the sections referred to being in no respect inconsistent therewith. The order of default was authorized by the showing made, and it does not appear that in refusing to open the default there was any abuse of discretion, no meritorious defense having been suggested other than a verified answer. The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Haw. 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrne-v-orpheum-co-haw-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack