Case: MUTUAL ADJUSTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, v. LEE CHONG, ALSO KNOWN AS LEE SAU CHONG, ALSO KNOWN AS LEE CHONG COMPANY AND ALSO DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF AH CHEW BROTHERS, DEFENDANT; DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINE INCORPORATED, LIMITED, AND W. K. RICHARDSON, GARNISHEES
Abbreviation: Mutual Adjustment Co. v. Chong
Court: Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1934-11-21
Docket Number: No. 2172
Citation: 33 Haw. 238
Volume: 33
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Parties: MUTUAL ADJUSTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, v. LEE CHONG, ALSO KNOWN AS LEE SAU CHONG, ALSO KNOWN AS LEE CHONG COMPANY AND ALSO DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF AH CHEW BROTHERS, DEFENDANT; DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINE INCORPORATED, LIMITED, AND W. K. RICHARDSON, GARNISHEES.
Pages: 238–239

MUTUAL ADJUSTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, v. LEE CHONG, ALSO KNOWN AS LEE SAU CHONG, ALSO KNOWN AS LEE CHONG COMPANY AND ALSO DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF AH CHEW BROTHERS, DEFENDANT; DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINE INCORPORATED, LIMITED, AND W. K. RICHARDSON, GARNISHEES.
No. 2172.
Argued November 20, 1934.
Decided November 21, 1934.
Coke, C. J., Banks and Parsons, J J.

Per Curiam.
This casé is before us on the motion of the plaintiff appellee to dismiss the appeal of Lee Sau Chong, defendant, and Chun Yau Chee, interven or. The cause is an action in assumpsit instituted in the circuit court, first judicial circuit, 1933 term. At the conclusion of the trial judgment was entered for plaintiff with the usual order directing that the garnishee, the Dollar Steamship Line Incorporated, Limited, pay to the plaintiff any moneys, etc., due or belonging to the defendant or which might thereafter become due him until the judgment was satisfied. The court discharged W. K. Richardson, the other garnishee, and disallowed the claim of the intervenor, Chun Yau Chee. From this judgment the defendant appellant and the intervenor have brought the cause to this court on a general appeal. It has been universally and repeatedly held in this jurisdiction that review of judgments of circuit courts in law cases may be obtained in this court through the medium of bills of exceptions and writs of error but that a general appeal does not lie in such cases. Carter v. Judge, 16 Haw. 212. See also Marumi v. Bonnell, 29 Haw. 545. The present case is essentially a laiv action, heard and determined in the circuit court.
W. Y. Char for the motion.
B. 8. Ulrich contra.
The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.