Monette v. Benjamin

Hawaii Supreme Court

Monette v. Benjamin

467 P.2d 574, 52 Haw. 27, 1970 Haw. LEXIS 90

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedApril 8, 1970

Docket4908

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 467 P.2d 574 (Monette v. Benjamin) 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

Monette v. Benjamin, 467 P.2d 574, 52 Haw. 27, 1970 Haw. LEXIS 90 (haw 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to dismiss defendants’ appeal to this conrt from a circuit court order reversing a district court judgment of dismissal of a summary possession complaint and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings.

The district court had dismissed the complaint on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction inasmuch as a question of title was raised by defendants’ affidavits. The circuit court reversed on the ground that defendants’ affidavits failed to meet the requirements of Bule 14 of the rules of this court in that they failed to set forth “the source, nature and extent of the title claimed by defendant to the land in question, and such further particulars as shall *28 fully apprise the court of the nature of defendant’s claim.”

E. D. Crumpaeker for plaintiffs-appellees, for the motion. Molly D. Zimring for defendants-appellants, contra.

Plaintiffs contend that the order appealed from is interlocutory. We disagree. This court has repeatedly stated that a final decision for the purpose of appeal is not necessarily the last decision in the case, and that the nature and effect of the decision rather than the stage at which it is rendered is the true test. Barthrop v. Kona Cofee Co., 10 Haw. 398, 401 (1896); Dole v. Gear, 14 Haw. 554, 566 (1903); Kalanianaole v. Liliuokalani, 23 Haw. 457, 466 (1916).

The nature and effect of the circuit court order is final as to defendants insofar as their right to raise the question of jurisdiction is concerned.

Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss is denied.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to dismiss defendants’ appeal to this conrt from a circuit court order reversing a district court judgment of dismissal of a summary possession complaint and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings.

The district court had dismissed the complaint on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction inasmuch as a question of title was raised by defendants’ affidavits. The circuit court reversed on the ground that defendants’ affidavits failed to meet the requirements of Bule 14 of the rules of this court in that they failed to set forth “the source, nature and extent of the title claimed by defendant to the land in question, and such further particulars as shall *28 fully apprise the court of the nature of defendant’s claim.”

E. D. Crumpaeker for plaintiffs-appellees, for the motion. Molly D. Zimring for defendants-appellants, contra.

Plaintiffs contend that the order appealed from is interlocutory. We disagree. This court has repeatedly stated that a final decision for the purpose of appeal is not necessarily the last decision in the case, and that the nature and effect of the decision rather than the stage at which it is rendered is the true test. Barthrop v. Kona Cofee Co., 10 Haw. 398, 401 (1896); Dole v. Gear, 14 Haw. 554, 566 (1903); Kalanianaole v. Liliuokalani, 23 Haw. 457, 466 (1916).

The nature and effect of the circuit court order is final as to defendants insofar as their right to raise the question of jurisdiction is concerned.

Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 P.2d 574, 52 Haw. 27, 1970 Haw. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monette-v-benjamin-haw-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack