Matson v. Aiona

7 Haw. 158
Hawaii Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1887·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

We think there is no ambiguity in the contract, as claimed by counsel for defendant. The ruling of the Court was in accordance with the well settled principle of law. This exception is therefore overruled.

There is a further exception that the judgment of the Court upon the facts is contrary to the law and the evidence. Upon a review of the case, we find that there was ample evidence to sustain the findings.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Matson v. Aiona, 7 Haw. 158 (haw 1887).

7 Haw. 158 (Matson v. Aiona) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pang See & Co. v. Aloha Motors, Ltd.
33 Haw. 861 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1936)
Smith v. Lee Chee
27 Haw. 122 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1923)