Bishop v. City & County of Honolulu
Hawaii Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OP THE COURT BY
PARSONS, J.
Judgment in the court below was for the plaintiffs. Upon application of the defendant writ of error was issued by this court to review the judgment. No bond has been filed by the defendant, the plaintiff' in error, conditioned for the payment of the judgment in the event of the failure of the defendant to sustain the writ. Plaintiffs (defendants in error) moved to dismiss the writ on the ground that “no bond conditioned for the payment of the judgment in said cause as required by section 2529 of the Revised Laws of Hawaii, 1925, has been filed herein by the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McClay v. City of LincolnNebraska Supreme Court · 1891
- Holmes v. City of MattoonIllinois Supreme Court · 1884
- State v. Judge of the Third DistrictSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1841
- Von Schmidt v. WidberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- Marks v. Waiahole Water Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1942
- Lord v. LordHawaii Supreme Court · 1941