Matson v. Aiona

Hawaii Supreme Court

Matson v. Aiona

7 Haw. 158

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 15, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 Haw. 158 (Matson v. Aiona) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Haw. 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matson-v-aiona-haw-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack