¶1(1) The instrument is set forth in the complaint and sued on in haec verba and it is immaterial what the plaintiff called it, whether it was in fact a promissory note or not. (2) The complaint was made a part of the summons by reference, and there is no statute requiring the return endorsed on a summons issued by a district court to refer to the complaint as distinguished from the summons. The judgment below is affirmed.
16 Haw. 792
Davis v. King
Decided March 8, 1905
Hawaii Supreme Court · decided 1905-03-08
Assumpsnt by defendant, who was plaintiff below, upon the following instrument: “Honolulu Nov. 8th 1-8. On demand I promise to pay to Mrs. J. A. King or order the sum of one-hundred and sixty dollars ($160.00), payable monthly in advance. Beginning from the first- day of Jan. 1st 1899, at ten dollars ($10.00) monthly until the sum of one hundred and sixty dollars in full is paid.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1927
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1905-03-08
View the full empirical analysis of this case →