Legal Opinion · Dissent

Oyama v. Stuart

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided August 2, 1915Published

Petition' eor Writ oe Prohibition.

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION OP

QUARLES, J.

The only question arising in the original proceeding in this court for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the continuance of the receivership of Joseph G. Pratt as receiver for the banking partnership of which the petitioner and the respondents M. Eomeya, Y. Ishii, U. Eobayashi, T. Mitamura and others were partners under the name of the Japanese Bank, is one of jurisdiction.

The bill of complaint filed by M. Eomeya, Y. Ishii, U. Eobayashi and T. Mitamura against the other partners, S. Eoshima, I. Yamamoto, M. Oyama, S. Eobayashi and G. Nakamura, respondents, on…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Ex parte WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1854
  2. Marten v. Van Schaick & BloodgoodNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
  3. International Trust Co. v. Decker Bros.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1907
  4. Law v. FordNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
  5. Cronan v. District CourtIdaho Supreme Court · 1908

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API