Correa v. Baldwin
This text of 16 Haw. 782 (Correa v. Baldwin) 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.
Opinion
An indefinite continuance by a magistrate is equivalent to an order of dismissal and is appealable. Humburg v. Namura, 13 Haw. 702. The denial of the amendment was interlocutory and not appealable by itself but the question of the correctness of the ruling may be raised on the appeal from the final judgment of indefinite continuance. Rulings upon amendments, although largely in the discretion of the trial court, may be reversed on appeal in case of abuse of discretion. Lum Sung v. Luning, 13 Haw. 665. The amendment should have been allowed in this case, and the indefinite continuance should not have been allowed. Judgment reversed and case remanded for further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
16 Haw. 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/correa-v-baldwin-haw-1904.