
    No. 65.
    Young Hin, Wong Tai, Wong Wah, Chu Lung Chee, Chu Chee, Chu Kou, Young Lin, Young Chong, Lam Tai, Chu King, Sam Sun, Lee Wo, Chan Wing, Ah Sun, Chan Sin, Lung Yee, Chun Hang, Hin York, Lee Chin, See Sing, Su Chong and Chai Lep Sing, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Von Hamm Young Company, Limited, a Hawaiian Corporation, and Honokaa Sugar Company, Limited, A Hawaiian Corporation, Defendants in Error.
    Error to the district court of Honokaa, island of Hawaii.
    Submitted January 3, 1905.
    Decided January 31, 1905.
    The defendant in error, Von Hamm Young Company, Ltd., brought an action in the district court of Honokaa against certain defendants doing business under the name of Kwong Yick Company, and the plaintiffs' in error, known as “Young Hin Gang No. 5,” as garnishees. Judgment was rendered by default against the garnishees in that case. A few days later the defendant in error, Von Hamm Young Company, Ltd., brought an action upon that judgment against the Kwong Yick Company as defendants and the Young Hin Gang No. 5 and the Honokaa Sugar Company, a corporation, as garnishees. The Young Hin Gang No. 5 made no appearance. The Honokaa Sugar Company answered admitting that it owed the Young Hin Gang No. 5 more than the amount of the judgment, although that amount was not due at that time. Judgment was rendered against the Honokaa Sugar Company to pay the amount of the previous judgment, attorneys’ fees and costs amounting to $315.25. The Young Hin Gang No. 5 brings this writ of error to set aside the second judgment, assigning a number of errors, one of which is that no jurisdiction was acquired by the district court over the Young Hin Gang No. 5 for the reason that no proper service was made upon the members of that company, the return of service being as follows: “Served the within summons on Kwong Yick Co. and Young Hin Gang No. 5, therein named as defendant by handing him a true and attested copy thereof and at the same time showing him the original, at Honokaa, this 19th day of May, 1904. J. Kaiula, police officer.”
    
      L. A. Dickey for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Thayer & Hemenway for defendants in error.
   Per curiam.

The district court acquired no jurisdiction over the plaintiffs in error for the reason that no proper service was made upon them and service was not waived by them by appearance or otherwise. Judgment reversed.  