The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-08-07
OPINION OF THE COURT,
BY FREAR, J.

BY FREAR, ].
This is suit in equity for a discoy
cry from each of the defendants; TO
salary of one of the plaintiffs as man
ager of defendant corporation; for con
sequential damages to his stock and tt
his other business by reason of hi:
discharge as such manager by defend
ant Capron, president of said corpora
ton; for decree that an excess of as
sessments paid by plaintiff Schlumpf
be placed to his credit; for damages fol
injury to Schlumph's stock by reason
of an order for it's sale given by the
corporation to defendant Morgan, an
auctioneer, for non-payment of assess
ments; for the appointment of a re-
ceiver to manage and control the cor
pOratiOn and it's property until such
time as it may be able to carry out its
charter privileges or until it has been
wound up; for an injunction against
the sale of the stock of each OF the
plaintiffs by the defendant Morgan, and
for other relief of various kinds.
The defendants demurred to the bill
on the following grounds: Misjoinder
of parties plaintiff; misjoinder of par
ties defendant; nOn-jOinder of parties
defendant; several causes of action i'm
properly united; adequate, full and
complete remedy at law; bill not signed
by counsel; multifariOusness; failure to
state facts sufficient to entitle plaintiffs
to discovery or other relief
The plaintiffs moved in this Court
that the appeal be dismissed on nine
grounds, the substance of which is that
the decision appealed from is not final;
that no decree has been entered, and
hnt
1t is argued for the defendants that
our statute is general, allowing appeals
from all decisions, judgments, orders
or DEGREES of Circuit Judges in Cham
bers, and not merely from final de-
cisiOns, etc; that it has been the prac-
tice of the Court hitherto in chamber
cases to entertain appeals from inter
locutory decisions; that elsewhere it is
only in the Code States that such ap-
pealS are not entertained; that de-
clsiOn oVerruling a demurrer that goes
to the equities of the whole bill is
final; and that if a demurrer were err
roneously oyerruled and no appeal al |
lowed, a defendant would be put I'M |
to trouble and expense by /
having to answer and proceed to trial |
These arguments have for the most |
part been urged upon this Court in
previous cases, which, though not upon
the precise question whether an appeal
lies from a decision overruling de-
in equity, yet seem indistin-
guishable in principle from the present
case.
Other portions of the same statute,
relating to appeals from ALI decis-
IONS of District Magistrates and ex-
eeptions to ANY opinion, direction, in
ruling or order of the pre-
siding Judge of a Circuit Court in a
law case, are equally general with the
portion under consideration. And yet
in constituting each of these portions
the Court has held repeatedly that an
appeal or exception cannot be brought
directly to this Court from an inter
locutory decision. In some of these
Eases the precise question was whether
I decision Overruling a demurrer could
De brought up on appeal or exceptions.
Brown V. Carvalho, 9 Haw. $50, from
1 District Magistrate; Prov. Govt V.
Herring, III 1877, and The Queen V
Poor, Ib. 2I8. from a Circuit Court
And even in chamber cases the general
'ule against allowing appeals from in
decisions has been applied,
hough not in a case where a demurrer
vas overruled. Bankruptcy of Gouveia
Haw. 253; Estate of Banning, 9 Haw.
81, $50.
1t is true that in some cases appeals
lave been entertained from decisions
'verruling demurrers in equity; but,
S was said of similar practice in law
asses in Prov. Govt V. Herring, supra,
his was with the consent of the ap-
'ellee. or the matter was unnoticed by
he Court Similar appeals have been
Entertained also by courts elsewhere
or because no objection
vas made, and yet the decisions on
UGH appeals have been held binding
N the parties, although the appeals
trictly speaking were not allowable
nder the statute. Washington Bridge
%. V. Stewart, 8 How. L. S. Alb
The rule against allowing appeals
rom interlOcutOry decisions seems to
e a general rule applicable to both
hamber and law cases, and not con-
ned to Code States. See Enc of Pl.
, Pr. 90, 81, 81, ia In Kirchner V
Wood, IS Mich. 1919, a decision over
1ling a demurrer to a bill in equity
as held not appealable. Afterwards
statute was passed allowing an appeal
'Om decision Overruling a general
Taylor V. Taylor, 81 Mich
The fact that a demurrer may go to
lie equities of the whole bill is not of
self sufficient to make a decision over 6
Hing it final. 1t is difficult, perhaps
1pOssible, to define accurately what is =
: what is not final decision for the
IrpOse of appeal. A final decision :,
IT this purpose is not necessarily in I
Tery instance the last decision in
case. The effect of a decision would
em to be better test OF its finality
an the stage at which it was render ~
]. Barry V. Briggs, % Mich. POI. And