Scott v. Nahale

12 Haw. 147, 1899 Haw. LEXIS 21
Hawaii Supreme Court·Decided October 14, 1899·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

FREAR, J.

This is au action of trespass to recover damages alleged to have been caused by defendant’s cattle running upon plaintiff’s land. Defendant pleaded res adjudieata, and showed in support o£ his plea that he had obtained judgment in a certain action of assumpsit which had previously been brought against him by this plaintiff to recover a sum alleged to be due upon an express contract for the pasturage of these same cattle upon the same land and during practically the same period as that during which the trespasses are alleged to have occurred. The district magistrate sustained the plea and gave judgment for the defendant. This was error. The question in the assumpsit case was whether there was a contract or not. The question in this is whether there was a trespass or not. The finding in the former case that there was no contract did not settle the question whether there had been a trespass.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and a new trial is ordered.

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

Scott v. Nahale, 12 Haw. 147, 1899 Haw. LEXIS 21 (haw 1899).

12 Haw. 147 (Scott v. Nahale) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Menashe v. Sutton
38 Haw. 449 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1950)