Legal Opinion · Dissent

E. O. Hall & Son, Ltd. v. Dickey

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided April 20, 1904Published

ORIGINAL.

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

GALBRAITH, J.

There are several reasons why the peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue and these proceedings should be dismissed, among these are:

1. That the defendant is sued as Lyle A. Dickey, not as Lyle A. Dickey, First District Magistrate of Honolulu, and the writ is directed to him in the same form. The court might compel by mandamus the defendant as an official to perform some duty required of him by law and which he refuses to perform, but as an individual we have no power to control his conduct by this extraordinary writ. This proposition is elementary.

2.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Capital Traction Co. v. HofSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  2. Chow v. DickeyHawaii Supreme Court · 1902

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

Powered by the Exa API