The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-07-27
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD CD.
(FosTER DIssENTING)

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD CD.
(FosTER DIssENTING)
This case came on for hearing, on
appeal, at the March Term 1894 of
this Court. & 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:
1.-The defendant demurs to plain
tiff's bill of complaint and for cause
saws that the Bill does not state such
a case as would entitle the complain.
ant to any relief in 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 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 a
good defense at law which he was
prevented from awaiting himself of
by fraud or accident, unmixed with
negligence of himself or his agents.
See Hop v Parke, 6 Haw. 6SS.
III. HackfeId V. Bal, 6 Haw. 364.
2 Story Eq. Jur. SS7; S94.
The sole 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 1T would
be against conscience TO execute the
judgment
Mills V. Briggs, Haw. SOC.
The grounds set forth In the Bill
of Complaint, which are alleged to
was entered by mistake, are sub
fully covered by the decision of the
Supreme Court Iii the case of
Z. de Herblay V. S. Norris, Sup
RENE Court, II. l. Special Term, July
"a. 1898
The elements and points raised
therein on comparison are identlca
with the allegations contained IL
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 poin
now raised in this Bill as to the
pending of exceptions, and in il!
decision after citing the points raised
and considered it says:
The defendant took no steps K
prevent the entry of Judgment or t
bring the case within the rule which
provided for the allowance of bill o
exceptions which would prevent tn
entry of Judgment. The bill of ex
ceptions was not filed or allowed I'm
til August %, 1891, four days afte
the entry of judgment and so lar a
the record shows that no notice by de
fendant of any intention to proven
entry of judgment was IN any wa
given; no motion for new trial nc
in arrest of judgment nor the film
of Bill of Exceptions was made bt
fore the entry of judgment and tn
presumption is that defendant relic
upon his bill of exceptions as sta
of execution merely, the effect c
Y sustaining his exceptions beln
merely the vacatipg of the judg
ment.'
Under that decision the judgmer
now sought to be vacated or restrain
ed was held to be legally entere
and valid.
The question of the statute c
limitations was IN issue in the origin
al case of De Herblay V. Norris, To
plaintiff therein specifically allegin
that the New York Judgment upo
which the action was brought wa