Lewers & Cooke, Ltd. v. Atcherly
222 U.S. 285 (1911)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Lewers & Cooke, Ltd. v. Atcherly, 222 U.S. 285 (1911)

Lewers & Cooke, Limited v. Atcherly

No. 69

Argued December 4, 1911

Decided December 18, 1911

222 U.S. 285

Syllabus

Where one asks the aid of a court of chancery in executing a former decree, he takes the risk of opening such decree for reexamination. Lawrence Manufacturing Co. v. Janesville Cotton Mills,138 U. S. 532.

Of two former decrees adjudicating title to real estate, the Supreme Court of Hawaii having found that the earlier was right and bound all interests and that the later was wrong, this Court affirms, seeing no reason for not following the local court.

Great weight should be attributed to the decision of the court on the spot, especially when ancient law is involved, such a existed in Hawaii before the annexation.

This Court sustains the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of Hawaii that decisions of the Board of Land Commissioners of 1845 could not be attacked except by direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Hawaii as provided by law.

A decree establishing a will may determine who is entitled to testator's property without determining that a particular property belonged to the inheritance.

Where a case has not passed to a final decree, one buying pendente lite from a party thereto stands no better than the vendor. Mellen v. Moline Iron Works,131 U. S. 352.

18 Haw. 625, 19 Haw. 47, affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 222 U. S. 292

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.