Keelikolani v. Lunalilo Trustees
Hawaii Supreme Court
The bill and cross bill are to be taken together and treated as one cause. Defective allegations in the bill are aided by those in the cross bill. In this cause there was enough to give jurisdiction. The death of one of several defendants before decree, but after the evidence was closed and submitted does not render decision made void or irregular.
Read the full summary
The bill and cross bill are to be taken together and treated as one cause. Defective allegations in the bill are aided by those in the cross bill. In this cause there was enough to give jurisdiction. The death of one of several defendants before decree, but after the evidence was closed and submitted does not render decision made void or irregular. Where nearly ten years had passed since the decree without appeal and where defendant took half her title sought to be established here from Kamehameha V., who had notice and fought the making of the decree, and where the record recites that in…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion- of the Court by
AUSTIN, J.
The question in these cases comes before us on appeal from the decision of the Chancellor in equity, overruling the *628demurrer to tbe original bill and allowing the demurrer to the eross bill. The original bill was in the nature of a bill quia timet to remove a cloud upon title to real estate. The cross bill sets up a claim in fee to about 1,000 acres of the land referred to in the bill.
“ A cross bill is generally considered as a defense, and the original cause and the cross bill are but one cause. It is so effectual as a defense, that if a cross bill is taken…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Perry v. WilsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- Seligman v. KalkmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by1 opinion
- H. Hackfeld & Co. v. MonsarratHawaii Supreme Court · 1907