Kekoa v. Borden
Hawaii Supreme Court
Appeal prom Police Court, H£lo. An attorney cannot recover of the husband a fee for his legal services in defending the wife in a criminal suit brought at the instance of the husband against the wife for desertion. Such legal services are not necessaries, nor do they come under the head of alimony. Judgment of lower Court affirmed.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion op the Court by
Austin, J.
The plaintiff seeks to recover directly of Mr. Borden ten dollars for services rendered Mrs. Borden, on her retainer, in two criminal actions against her for desertion of her husband.
It is claimed that such services were necessaries furnished to her, and for that reason Mr. Borden is liable.
In suits for necessaries recoveries are allowed upon the ground that the wife is the agent of the husband to contract for them. In no enumeration of necessaries, which we have seen, are such legal expenses included.
See Sec. 554 and note, Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, vol…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Forrester v. HurttHawaii Supreme Court · 1907
- Ludin v. LudinHawaii Supreme Court · 1925
- Ing v. ChungHawaii Supreme Court · 1938
- Wilson v. HopperHawaii Supreme Court · 1938
- Ching On v. LewisHawaii Supreme Court · 1914