The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-07-27
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD CT.
(FosrER DIssENTING)

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD CT
(FosTER DIssENTIEG)
This case came on for hearing, or
appeal, at the March Term 1894 OF
this Court. A re-argument on one
point was ordered and had at the
June Term. Having duly consider.
ed the case and the decision appeal
ed from, rendered by Circuit Judge
Whiting on the 7th March 1894, we
hereby adopt the said decision as our
own, and affirm the order made
therein sustaining the demurrer and
dissolving the injunction.
Following is the decision hereby
adopted:
"The defendant demurs to plain
tif7s bill of complaint and for cause
says that the Bill does not state such
a case as would entitle the complain
ant to any relief in a Court of
Equity.
The plaintiff seeks to restrain the
further enforcement Of Judgment
recovered by the defendant herein
against the plaintiff herein in the
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Isl
ands on August 25, 1891, on the
ground that such judgment was en-
tered by mistake of fact.
Many cases have been cited to
show the authority of a Court in
Equity to interfere with a judgment
at law, and our Supreme Court has
repeatedly stated the grounds for re-
lief.
A Court of Equity may only inter
fere with judgment at law where
the complainant has an equitable
defense of which he could not avail
himself at law because it did not
amount to legal defense or had
good defense at law which he was
prevented from availing himself of
by fraud or accident, unmixed with
negligence of himself or his agents.
See Hop V. Parke, 6 Haw. 688.
H. Hsckfeld " Bal, 6 Haw. 364.
2 Story Eq. Jur. S87; S94.
The cole grounds for relief in
equity against judgment of Court |
of law are for accident, fraud, mis-
take or surprise, where on account of |
one or more of these causes it would |
be against conscience to execute the |
Judgment.
Mills V. Briggs, Haw. 506.
The grounds set forth in the Bill |
of Complaint, which are alleged to
show that the judgment in question
was entered by mistake, are sub
stantially those contained in and |
fully covered by the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of
Z. de Herblsy v S. Norris, Sup
RENE Court, II. !. Special Term, July
"a. 1898.
The elements and points raised
therein on comparison are identical
with the allegations contained in
this Bill of Complaint and the decis-
ion covers most of the points in this
present case in Equity; and the Sup
rene Court had before it the point
now raised in this Bill as to the
pending of exceptions, and in its
decision after citing the points raised
and considered it says:
The defendant took no steps 10
prevent the entry of judgment or to
bring the case within the rule which
provided for the allowance of bill of
exceptions which would prevent the
entry of Judgment. Tho bill of ex-
ceptions was not filed or allowed un-
Ill August %, 1891, four days after
the entry of Judgment and so far as
he record shows that no notice by de-
fendant of any intention to prevent
entry of judgment was in any way
given; no motion for new trial nor
n arrest of judgment nor the filing
If Bill of Exceptions was made be
'ore the entry of judgment and the
is that defendant relied
lpon his bill OF exceptions as stay
If execution merely, the effect of
his exceptions being
merely the vacsting of the judg-
nent.'
Under that decision the judgment
low sought to be vacated or restrain
ID was held to be legally entered
md valid.
The question of the statute of
limitations was IN issue in the origin
Il case of De Herblay V. Norris, the
plaintiff therein specifically alleging
hat the New York judgment upon
which the action was brought was