Case Name: Young Hin Et Al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. H. Hackfeld and Company, Limited, and Honokaa Sugar Company, Limited, Defendants in Error
Court: Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1905-03-10
Citations: 16 Haw. 789
Docket Number: No. 63
Parties: Young Hin Et Al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. H. Hackfeld and Company, Limited, and Honokaa Sugar Company, Limited, Defendants in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
No. 63.
Young Hin Et Al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. H. Hackfeld and Company, Limited, and Honokaa Sugar Company, Limited, Defendants in Error.
Motion of plaintiffs in error in two cases entitled as above for rehearing on the following grounds: “1. The supreme court in its decision in said cases rendered January 28, 1905, overlooked ond did not consider the following matters which are decisive of said case which plaintiffs in error called to the attention of the court in their brief: a. That the district magistrate had no jurisdiction over the matter of the garnishment proceedings for lack of a written petition, which this court has held to be necessary in Frag v. Alams, 5 Haw. 664. The court’s decision misconstrues the. contention of plaintiffs in error to be that the garnishee summons fails to contain a petitnon for process against the garnishee. Such was not the contention for the summons does contain a recital of such a petitnon, but the contention is-that under said ruling in Frag v. Adams to give a district magistrate jurisdiction there must not only be a summons but also a written petition. A summons signed by a district magistrate, no matter what may be its recitals is not the written petition of the plaintiff, b. That if the district magistrate took judicial notice of his judgment of two days before, he should have taken judicial notice that that was a judgment given without jurisdiction over the garnishees in that case and without evidence against most of them; in that there was no written petition for process in that case; and that most of the garnishees were unserved and no evidence was given that garnishees were partners or jointly liable in any sum to the defendants in that case. 2. That the deci sion is largely based on a point not raised by either plaintiffs in-error or defendants in error and decided without hearing- argument thereon and that on said point the decision is incorrect and contrary to a controlling statute of the Territory to which the attention of the court was not drawn. The said point is that ‘plaintiffs in error cannot assign errors committed against a co-defendant where rights as in this case are not affected by the error.’ ”.
Argued March 8, 1905.
Decided, March 10, 1905.
Lyle A. Dickey for plaintiffs in error.
C. Brown, F. E. Thompson and C. F. Clemons for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Per curiam:
The motion is denied.