Redward v. Lutted

Hawaii Supreme Court

Redward v. Lutted

15 Haw. 431, 1904 Haw. LEXIS 90

DecidedFebruary 20, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Haw. 431 (Redward v. Lutted) 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

Redward v. Lutted, 15 Haw. 431, 1904 Haw. LEXIS 90 (haw 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

FREAR, C.J.

Assumpsit for $281.49 for moving a bouse. Defense that there was an express contract for $150. The District Magistrate so found, but on appeal the Circuit Court, jury waived, found for the full amount claimed. The question now raised by the exceptions is whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding. It is probably true, as contended for the defendant, that when he testified that there was no contract, he meant no written contract and not no oral contract for $150, but, although he, the defendant, contends that there was an oral contract for $150 the plaintiff testified positively that there was no contract at all, but merely 'an offhand rough estimate or guess as to the probable cost of moving the building, before the defendant purchased it or engaged the plaintiff to move it.

The exceptions are overruled.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

FREAR, C.J.

Assumpsit for $281.49 for moving a bouse. Defense that there was an express contract for $150. The District Magistrate so found, but on appeal the Circuit Court, jury waived, found for the full amount claimed. The question now raised by the exceptions is whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding. It is probably true, as contended for the defendant, that when he testified that there was no contract, he meant no written contract and not no oral contract for $150, but, although he, the defendant, contends that there was an oral contract for $150 the plaintiff testified positively that there was no contract at all, but merely 'an offhand rough estimate or guess as to the probable cost of moving the building, before the defendant purchased it or engaged the plaintiff to move it.

The exceptions are overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Haw. 431, 1904 Haw. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redward-v-lutted-haw-1904.