The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-01-02
DECIDED DECEMBER 10,

Bar, in place of Whiting j., disqualified.
MOTION REHEARINe.
The question of the effect ownership policy
of life
o policy.
made
agreement effect
foreign divorce upon the ownership the policy
ceeds thereof shall determined of New
York.
private
o place of divorce
hearng will not be granted for by counsel upon
which counsel
a
probably lead to a
reheang will be granted order allow argument
a
question not argued the first hearing where the
rehearing
decision
a
both their dmcl and afterwards DEGREES
divorce the effect of the divorce upon the disposition
will be affected by change of
signing the decree
OPINION
The former decision, ante, p H. in this filed
August Is, 1895 On October 1895 counsel for the
defendant filed rehearne, based number of
grounds therein forth On March 6, 1885, he filed adj
dona grounds. Opposing counsel objected to the courts
entertaining grounds of defendants laches
in fling acquiescence in the judgment Aft
both sides The thought best
hear argument upon the motion itself as we'll as upon
preliminary questions of aches and acqiescence and in
all and of concuson believe
will be satisfactory consider the motion entirely
merits without the questions OF laches and
ali.
The points relied upon by the defendants counsel in his
brief will be considered in their order We
regretted much the first hearing that were not thus
favored with full argument behalf of the defendant except
upon of the interesting questions involved IN the
argued by plaintiffs counsel suggested
by the court The decision rendered early date,
requested behalf of the defendant in such light the court
had and yet the light of the full
we'd 10 not
ing We this conclusion fully realizing both that
if rehearing should be granted it would by imply
decision and that the merits
of the involved in the disposal of the notion al
though found by counsel in argument, the merits must
necessarily be considered to extent.
The point relied that the manesty erred
constituting the policy Hawaiian contract, whereas 1t
appears its face to be New York contract The
submitted agreed statement OF facts IN which was
expressly agreed the of made and
entered into in Hawaiian Islands," This is all that
assumed decision, name in the words 1.-THE contract
having entered into these Islands, But it IS argued
the agreed cannot be construed an admission
that the policy Hawaiian contract III So the decision
also be construed holding that for It's language is
that of the agreed statement.
Il further argued that the agreed does
tain such admission then counsel, who signed it. exceeded his
authority in doing and the defendant bound thereby
If the statement did contain admission would
have been perfectly justified in acting upon it. When
IS submitted upon agreed statement of facts
signed by responsible counsel it certainly would not be the
duty of the court would be proper that
counsel was acting without authority and then decide the
upon facts directly contrary those upon which the
and especially where this the admission
certain circumstances be accordance
with the facts Notwithstanding the particular language of the
policy before the court But Is unneces
arv decide the agreed statement did such
admission, did whether attorney at law could
uch properly make such admission whether such
admission if made fact authorized acquiesced in
bv the defendant For the did matter of
fact consrue the policy Hawaiian contract 1t construed
precisely requested by defendants counsel hodng that
the word .e the policy word of description, not
Of condition. in accordance with the judicial decisions elsewhere
in similar cases. which far appears would be followed IN
NOta SIOOp NpVl dpcS
or statute was cited upon this point by counsel either
side but it was assumed by the and by counsel both
sides that the law upon this question the IN New
York a elsewhere and taken by the what
IL IL dar,ts to he