Territory of Hawaii v. Aki
This text of 15 Haw. 63 (Territory of Hawaii v. Aki) 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.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
The only exception in this case is to the dismissal by the Circuit Court of the defendant’s appeal from the District Court of Puna, Hawaii, such dismissal being based on the ground that the instrument filed purporting to be the notice of appeal was not signed.
There was no error in the ruling excepted to. The statute (C. L., Sec. 1430) provides that appeals shall be allowed from all decisions of District Magistrates to the Circuit Court of the same Circuit whenever the party appealing “shall file notice of his appeal” within a time stated and comply with certain other conditions. The notice required by this statute must be in writing. Kaleialii v. Grinbaum, 9 Haw. 141. In our opinion, such writing in order to constitute a notice within the meaning of the statute must be signed by the appellant or by some one [64]*64in his behalf. Without signature it is not the act of the party and is as though no notice had been filed. See Doer v. Life Association, 92 Ia. 39; Larrabee v. Morrisson, 15 Minn. 151; 2 Encycl. Pl. & Pr. 215. That the failure to sign the notice was due to ignorance or to inadvertence or to the reliance placed by the defendant upon those who were requested by him to prepare the necessary papers, is not a sufficient excuse.
The exception is overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
15 Haw. 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/territory-of-hawaii-v-aki-haw-1903.