Legal Opinion
Territory v. Howell
Hawaii Supreme Court
Decided July 2, 1917No. 1021PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Exceptions 'from Circuit Court, Second Circuit. Hon. W. S. Edings, Judge.
1Opinion of the Court
*798OPINION OP THE COURT BY
ROBERTSON, C.J.
This is an action against the principal and surety upon an official bond brought by the Territory of Hawaii for the use and benefit of the county of Maui. It was alleged in the complaint that the defendant Howell had been appointed county engineer under the provisions of ordinance No. 28 of the county of Maui, and, on the 9th day of February, 1915, entered into a bond as required by the ordinance in the sum of $5000, with the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company as surety; that the defendant Howell, as such engineer, assumed and undertook to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- County of Bay ex rel. Houghtaling v. BrockMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Farr v. RouillardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- Foster v. MalbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- Taylor v. MansonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- County of Hawaii v. PurdyHawaii Supreme Court · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Commercial Insurance Co. of Newark v. Pacific-Peru Construction Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey v. Pacific-Peru Construction Corp. And the Hawaii Corporation, the Hawaii Corporation, Third-Party v. American International Underwriters Corporation, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977