Kahiwa Hee Chung, Also Known as Keohohiwa v. Ah See Hee, Under the Will of Emalia Haahaa Akiona Hee, Also Known as E. Haahaa

Ninth Circuit

Kahiwa Hee Chung, Also Known as Keohohiwa v. Ah See Hee, Under the Will of Emalia Haahaa Akiona Hee, Also Known as E. Haahaa

216 F.2d 614

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 29, 1954

Docket13485

StatusPublished

This text of 216 F.2d 614 (Kahiwa Hee Chung, Also Known as Keohohiwa v. Ah See Hee, Under the Will of Emalia Haahaa Akiona Hee, Also Known as E. Haahaa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kahiwa Hee Chung, Also Known as Keohohiwa v. Ah See Hee, Under the Will of Emalia Haahaa Akiona Hee, Also Known as E. Haahaa, 216 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This was a suit for the cancellation of a deed on grounds of undue influence and mistake. The complainant in the ease was an aged and infirm Hawaiian woman, and the defendant her daughter. The relief asked was granted by the trial court on ground of mistake, and the Territorial Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was undue influence as well. 39 Hawaii 364.

We discover in this case no manifest error either in the findings or in the application of governing principles, and the judgment must be affirmed. Cf. Waialua Agricultural Co. v. Christian, 305 U.S. 91, 59 S.Ct. 21, 83 L.Ed. 60; Meyer v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 164 F.2d 845; Meyer v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 277.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This was a suit for the cancellation of a deed on grounds of undue influence and mistake. The complainant in the ease was an aged and infirm Hawaiian woman, and the defendant her daughter. The relief asked was granted by the trial court on ground of mistake, and the Territorial Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was undue influence as well. 39 Hawaii 364.

We discover in this case no manifest error either in the findings or in the application of governing principles, and the judgment must be affirmed. Cf. Waialua Agricultural Co. v. Christian, 305 U.S. 91, 59 S.Ct. 21, 83 L.Ed. 60; Meyer v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 164 F.2d 845; Meyer v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 277.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 F.2d 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kahiwa-hee-chung-also-known-as-keohohiwa-v-ah-see-hee-under-the-will-of-ca9-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack