Legal Opinion

Vivas v. Kauhimahu

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1909PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Aureal from District Magistrate, Wailuku.

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OP THE COURT BY

HARTWELL, C.J.

The plaintiffs sued to recover $100 on a quantum meruit for their professional services to the defendant’s wife as her attorneys on her appeal to this court from a decree of divorce granted to the defendant, and in drawing and preparing briefs, typewriting and attendance in the matter, averring that the services were necessary for protecting and defending her rights. The defendant’s demurrer on the grounds that the complaint did not state a cause of action and showed that the court had no jurisdiction was sustained on both grounds. The plaintiffs appeal on…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. In re DoleHawaii Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Shelton v. PendletonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1847
  3. Porter v. BriggsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1874
  4. Warner & Ryan v. HeidenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
  5. Forrester v. HurttHawaii Supreme Court · 1907

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Gomes v. GomesHawaii Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Ludin v. LudinHawaii Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Ing v. ChungHawaii Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Ching On v. LewisHawaii Supreme Court · 1914

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

Powered by the Exa API