Legal Opinion

Makainai v. Goo Wan Hoy

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 1903PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeals from District Magistrate, Honolulu.

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

GALBRAITH, J.

The plaintiff commenced separate suits in the District Court •of Honolulu on two promissory notes bearing date, January 10, 1901, one due in six and the other in twelve months after date, executed by the defendant and payable to the plaintiff for the sum of $250. The District Magistrate found in one ease that the note sued on was not “properly stamped” as required by the *608United States Internal Revenue Law of 1898, and in the other the finding was that the note was not “properly stamped” and that the stamps on the note were not “properly cancelled” and gave…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. National Bank v. County of YanktonSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Carpenter v. SnellingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
  3. Griffin v. RanneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1868
  4. Patterson v. GileSupreme Court of Colorado · 1870

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Oahu Railway & Land Co. v. KailiHawaii Supreme Court · 1915
  2. H. Hackfeld & Co. v. AchiHawaii Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Rapozo v. KeliinoiHawaii Supreme Court · 1924

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API